Talk:Waterboarding

technique

the point of waterboarding is to seal the mouth and force water through the nose. the article does not emphasize this, instead it goes for the opposite, suggesting that there is a hole cut in celophane etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.12.135 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post. You must know something we don't know, because the articles we're using state that the mouth is forced open. The version you describe must be an alternate method. Do you have sources for this? Badagnani 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, how is it possible that you could know something that we don't know? Or something that is not in an article! Preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.198.207 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC

archiving, the RFC link call appears to be long down, if you want a new open, open one please.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What has been disputed is the first line of the article: "Waterboarding is a form of torture[1] also known as water torture." The source for this is: letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code. See also the definition given by the United Nations Convention Against Torture.06:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors involved in dispute

• I believe that the first sentence is not neutral because of the fact that the article goes on to state that the CIA, Bush, Cheney, and other prominent politicians do not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture. I believe that neutrality is violated as the first sentence states that "waterboarding is torture" as fact, because it then taints the remainder of the article. Anyone who believes the opposite, such as President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the CIA, Condoleezza Rice, Rudy Giuliani, political commentators, and millions of conservatives have their viewpoint belittled by the article's first sentence. I do not believe that their viewpoint represents a tiny minority. And nobody has proven that it is even a minority viewpoint either. I think this viewpoint must be taken into account in the first sentence. Because otherwise, by stating that waterboarding is, unequivocally, torture, I believe that the article violates this piece of Wikipedia policy: it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. Several attempts to reword the first sentence to one that states that there have been two sides to this controversial issue, such as these here [1] have been reverted. Further, I would like to add that I do not believe that the cited source is sufficent to justify the statement that waterboarding = torture. One hundred U.S. attorneys wrote a letter to Alberto Gonzales stating that they believed waterboarding was torture. Since many prominent politicians do not believe waterboarding to be torture, it stands to reason that we could also find 100 U.S. attorneys who believe the opposite. This is a misuse of statistics. As for the other piece of that source, the UN definition of torture, nowhere does it explicitly state that waterboarding is torture. The definition is broad, but as I have stated above, many prominent people believe that waterboarding is not torture. And they probably believe this because of waterboarding's brevity and its supposed lack of bodily harm...anyways, the point is that it's open to interpretation and is being interpreted in dual ways by large enough groups of people to warrant that the article not take sides. Again, this is and will be a very controversial article; it is hardly the place of Wikipedia to end the controversy. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 06:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bellowed states many prominent people believe that waterboarding is not torture. For the nth time, I have to ask WHO?; we have asked over and over, for over a year, for someone to produce any example of this claim, none has been forthcoming. Bellowed has been completely unable to back up his claim that people of note disagree with this. The fact that plain fact and truth cast someone in a bad light does not in and of itself affect neutrality, if that preposterous assertion was true, shouldn't articles be nicer to the Nazis? Truth sometimes hurts - that is no excuse to go burning books. Again, WHO, sources please Bellowed. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help) Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting the facts. Dick Cheney has NOT said this. Bush has refused to even mention the topic, Sources please?. Anonymous sources, claiming to be CIA that may be the CIA, or may be Donald Duck are claimed to have stated is not torture. As the very people accused this has about as much weight as Marilyn Manson saying extrajudicial homicide is not murder, but a form of jaywalking. Stop claiming that people are saying it is not torture when they have not done so. SOURCES, CITATIONS, not speculation and supposition please. The very fact that they have avoided all mention of the topic is highly suspicious given the future legal jeopardy they are in, facing potential war crimes action by the International Criminal Court. They have not said it is not torture; I'm sure they know such a suggestion would be ridiculed, besides they probably are perfectly well aware that it is torture - but condone it anyway, in fact about the only information trickling out of the small number of apologists, such as a former New York mayor is that whether or not it is torture it is ok to do in some cases. Not liking something does not make it untrue. There are plenty of people out there who think it is acceptable in certain extreme cases - however this does not mean they do not consider it torture. It just means they consider it acceptable in some cases. IMHO Bellowed is misrepresenting people who agree it is acceptable as people who have stated it is not torture - there is a very big difference, he is manipulating the facts as consensus achieved in a difficult environment, in difficult times, is solidly against him. It's not a question of minority views - no one can even show existence of this claimed minority.24.7.91.244 19:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• If the contributor in question needs to list nine sources for the very first sentence, then obviously the sentence should be reworded. Regardless that the author has strong feelings as to whether he thinks waterboarding is really a torture or not, most of the sources are essentially worthless since they are just referring to other people's stated opinions on the subject. Simply insisting that waterboarding is torture doesn't actually make it torture. There should be just one or two high-quality links to an undisputed legal definition showing that waterboarding is legally considered torture, perhaps referencing court decisions. The rest of those sources should be removed as they just looks silly and sophomoric. Help make wikipedia better and more trustworthy, not just a place to insist on your own POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonnegut56 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• This RFC is long over. The article is significantly different since then. And the number of sources is to make it eminently clear to POV pushers and those who wish to alter the definition of torture whilst on revision crusades that there are plenty of sources pointing at waterboarding being torture - and virtually NONE to the contrary. Anyway, if you want an RFC, open one. Archiving this now.Inertia Tensor 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside View

• The lead needs to explain both points of view. The opinion of 100 lawyers, given the literally thousands, and thousands of lawyers in the United States, not to mention internationally, is not sufficient to support such a controversial statement. The UN reference is a red herring, since it too says nothing about waterboarding, and is meant for the reader to make inferences; that's not a source. --Haemo 06:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• In response to the RFC: I think that the NPOV requirements would be satisfied if the lead notes that waterboarding is widely regarded as torture, although some conservatives defend it as a form of interrogation that stops short of the legal definition of torture (as I recall, the famous memo by Alberto Gonzalez said that if it doesn't cause organ failure or insanity, it's not torture. Maybe that could be cited as a source for "conservative opinion.") --Marvin Diode 21:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism of Bellowed's statement on RfC

I'm closing this tread and sectioning off the bits about other things. People have managed to respond to the RFC based on two different editor's views of the issue in the thread above. I don't think the introductory description has been preventing us from getting good views on this issue, and any more heated discussion of such a trivial matter as the RFC summary is likely to cause more harm than good.--Chaser - T 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is not meant to be a continuation of the POV dispute which has lead to a RfC. Please read and edit in the above appropriate sections. Please see the base of this section for proposals to at least get this matter ironed out24.7.91.244 00:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is purely a criticism and rebuttals of whether Bellowed abused the rules for editing on ANOTHER page, the Project page for RfC by not using a neutral statement. This is NOT ABOUT THE WATERBOARDING ARTICLE.24.7.91.244 00:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed wrote in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics Is it a violation of WP:NPOV to have "waterboarding equals torture" stated as fact, when many conservatives hold an opinion that it is not?. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics says List newer entries on top, stating briefly and neutrally what the debate is about. This is a completely inaccurate, grossly misleading claim by Bellowed, and is not neutral as no one has been able to find any notable conservative, or anyone else of note for that matter who holds this opinion. Bellowed is, as usual, misrepresenting the facts to push a personal POV in violation of consensus.24.7.91.244 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The CIA here[2]

See the detailed discussion of this above in talk. 24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The CIA is not a source for many conservatives hold an opinion24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's anonymous, it could have bene Donald Duck.24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming it is authentic, If Marylin Manson said the murders he commited were not murders, but legal homicides - would you use that to sway the root of the article? It is very worth of mention, and it is mentioned - but the practioner of torture saying it is not torture is applying gross undue weight. 24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheney here[3]

See the detailed discussion of this above in talk.24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave is broken.24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed in detail above. The Whitehouse denied Cheny was referring to waterboarding. Read talk. And the artcile while you are at it - specifically White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that Cheney had not been referring to waterboarding, but only to a "dunk in the water"24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Same undue weight as CIA above - credibility of the chief practioner is zero on the subject matter.24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So where are all these conservatives you keep talking about?? Please don't tar conservatives with the slur that they do not consider waterboarding torture. In my experience, they tend to be very intelligent and are not likely to think this at all. 24.7.91.244 21:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We've also got people like Rudy Giuliani, not to mention major conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, even Dennis Miller. Candidates have supporters and talk show hosts have audiences. I can't believe you are disupting that millions of conservatives don't believe that it's torture. You've never shown that a tiny minority believes that waterboarding isn't torture; you have shown, though, that you are the tiny minority that believes that there is only a tiny minority that believes waterboarding isn't torture. (or something like that)|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again - you misrepresenting conservatives. You have no citations or sources there whatsoever. I have no doubt that some consider waterboarding justified in some circumstances (contrary to international law which explicitly provides no exceptions), regardless of whether it is torture or not. But no one can find any sources, references or citations, or anything remotely usable that shows the fundamental assertion you keep making - that they believe it is not torture. 24.7.91.244 22:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I cited alot of them earlier in the talk--Giuliani for instance. I'm not going to do it again just so I can prove something that everyone already knows.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's just stuff I pulled off the first couple of paragraphs of this article. I figured that you might have actually read the waterboarding article you edit so much. Then again, I've put this up on this discussion page and you've apparently never read it, so I'm really not all that suprised.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT REMOVE MY CONTENT FROM TALK. If you want to discuss it elsewhere, copy it - but it was HIGHLY relevant there IN THAT POSITION as a rebuttal of your gross misuse of RfC in placing a highly biased statement here: [| Original waterboarding RfC ]. It is meant to be neutral - NOT a place to make a statement which only you agree with. 24.7.91.244 21:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. For the record, you are the only person who has removed content from talk; namely, my rebuttal to you. I did move the response you placed in an inappropriate position--we cannot argue back and forth within the RfC statement. If you want to place a rebuttal to it and not allow me room to respond, that's not fair. I never deleted anything or moved something you wrote to an inappropriate position; I'm not trying to silence you. However, I don't feel that your response is even appropriate in small font because it appears that I have not responded to it (which I did above.) I am not going to copy my rebuttal in small font to add to the end of your small font--we might as well just add a note saying "please see criticism of this statement below." That's the only fair way of going about this.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Go through the diffs, you removed content as well as moving it. I had to hunt around diffs to find it to restore. I am addressing your complaint with a link - however that small belongs there, unless you would rather I removed or revised the offending biased statement in the Project page itself? 24.7.91.244 21:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to relocate readers away from the correct POV dispute texts further up on this talk page. This is about one singular matter. I say you violated the RfC project rules by placing a biased statement where it clearly asks for a neutral statement of what the dispute is about. You disagree. That is all that this section should be about.24.7.91.244 21:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, don't make an accusation like that and put the burden of proof on me to go through the diffs myself. You go through the diffs and state it here, otherwise you should retract your statement. Because unlike you, I never removed your talk.

Retract? are you kidding me? DIFF of deletion. Later fixed, but gone when i was looking for it. Gone for 6 minutes. Next edit when you restored it elsewhere was later. It was DELETED, not moved. There's more, but this one proves my point. YOU DELETED. 24.7.91.244 22:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. I deleted it for a few minutes while I was in the process of moving it. I have to delete it to move it, you know.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure.... And how about a few days ago - when you kept deleting something I wrote in talk - we both later agreed to leave one part of it censored at your request - however in the process you also knocked out other talk of mine not related to the meta:right to vanish question. You can find those diffs yourself - I already spent enough time trying to undo the damage you have been causing since you rolled in here during a dispute with someone else. You have a track record of removing user talk from discussions when you don't like it. Like what waterboarding is, its a fact - if you don't like it I can't help you. Would you Want a RfC on the authenticity of the DIFFs now, this is getting ridiculous - to paraphrase the US Army's marketing campaign in the US, you are a minority of one. 24.7.91.244 22:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the other day when you kept inserting material that could identify me I deleted it. You stopped when an admin informed me meta:right to vanish. I never deleted anything that actually had a point to it.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was NOT personally identifiable, and was something you published on wiki. Now you have me in a difficult position - I can show you are LYING again by publishing a diff - but I agreed not to do that at your request as it will show the other content too. I just looked at and found at least 3 DIFFs where you deleted other content in this case - to avoid publishing the diff (for you) here is the either text that you wiped effectively removing a rebuttal you didn't like. If you call it an accident, I'll show two more - it will get hard for people to believe all the accidents. REMOVED text less the part we agreed to dump: ------ Just what do you mean by No editor, much less an anonymous one, do you know how wikipedia works, or are you just making it up as you go along, harassing people who try to restrain your POV pushing, and casting negative aspersions? ------ 24.7.91.244 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was personally identifiable which was exactly why I didn't want it anywhere on Wikipedia; you didn't respect my wishes. And what I mean by 'no editor much less an anonymous one.." is that nobody has the right to take off a POV tag which lets people know that the article is in dispute. I might remind you that it was in dispute long before I came along. And being anonymous doesn't help when the argument for removing the POV tag is that consensus is against me. For all I know, you're Eleemosynary and you're engineering consensus by stacking the deck with his name and his IP.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read things before responding and not changing the subject. The text you responded to (anonymity) was just a reprint of part something else I wrote that you DELETED, and then LIED about not deleting. I was trying to do you a favor and instead of publishing the DIFF, just showing you a bit of it that you deleted - would you rather I just publish the 3 additional diffs I found of unrelated material you deleted???? On the other matter - it was neither personally identifiable, nor believable (or I wouldn't have brought it up, see the context of that edit - and YOU put it on Wikipedia - not me. 24.7.91.244 00:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Second, it's better, but still not fair for you to state within the RfC section that I have never responded with any sources, then put a mere link to my sources. I can't respond within it. Someone can easily come here and see your criticism and my response.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, do as I stated and fix the offending biased entry on the project page, then I won't have to rebut your abuse of the RfC project page. 24.7.91.244 22:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

BELLOWED: You claimed that "people like Rudy Giuliani, not to mention major conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, even Dennis Miller. argue that waterboarding is not torture. Do you have some proof, and links to back up your claims? Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 22:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, since your question wasn't a statement by an editor in dispute, I moved it here. I added the Giuliani quotes awhile back on the talk page. Here's some links for starters. I'm sure you could find alot more in no time. Tony Snow/Dick Cheney[4] Dennis Miller[5] Bill O'Reilly[6]

• STOP Manipulating with other people's talk! You want him to move it - ask him, on his user page - I am restoring it where HE PUT IT 24.7.91.244 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there. It's not a statement. Why can't you preserve the integrity of the formatting? So not only is it not a statement, not only did he ask something that was from this section, but now, in the statements section, it looks like I haven't responded to him.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (which is why i edited my stuff accordingly), but ask him - this has become way to hot for editors to move others statements in talk. Anyway, it does not belong in this cat either - it belongs in the cat above RfC. 24.7.91.244 00:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...nothing here is about the criticism of my statement on the RfC page any more. We've slowly ventured off topic because I had to respond to your allegations that no conservatives believe it's not torture and we've gone back and forth on that. Perhaps we should start a subsection for this section since it is still related in a way?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You took it off-topic with dodgy citations placed here. This is about me simply saying you wrote something biased in the RfC project page, the mere fact that I am saying that shows its lack of neutrality. Other POV discussion belongs elsewhere above. The reason I so strongly oppose the migration of POV debate here is that I consider it a red herring. There is a RfC out - You have requested outside comments. In doing so we would effectively split the talk on POV between new and old, and much could be missed. Years of work, and years off fierce and often heated debate went into creating a consensus - it should be kept linear and together. This is not the cat for it. 24.7.91.244 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DOJ's view

And I just pulled up the US Justice Dept's view on what constitutes torture here[7] |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are one to talk about out of place. This section is NOT about the dispute - it is about the neutrality of one line of text on a DIFFERENT PAGE - the RfC Project page. Plus NOTHING in that link of yours says it is not torture. NOTHING. 24.7.91.244 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's not in the link itself. You have to click on the link to read where it says that these people don't believe it's torture.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WRONG CATEGORY why are you complaing about Bmedley's edit! Anyway, it does not state it is not torture - it references a withdrawn memo - which IS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH in the article's body. Not to mention undue weight - a practitioner saying its ok. see talk, read the article, and keep your edits in the appropriate category. Unless you want others to start moving your talk and sorting out the disparate mess of it into the correct categories? 24.7.91.244 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

We recraft the RfC (which I agree on doing!) to a statement we both agree on - and then declutter by mutually agreeing to wipe this entire category (which is just us arguing alone) from talk. There's very little we can agree on, but I suspect that is one thing. I can't create a new consensus on the article with you and the other editors as teh views are wildly divergent with yours - but we can have a consensus on just this RfC matter. 24.7.91.244 00:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

one idea - feel free to help. Editors disagree strongly on whether waterboarding is torture, and what constitutes a source in this case, we would greatly welcome outside views, and of course contributors. 24.7.91.244 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the first line simply state "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique"

--143.166.226.58 17:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (BiTMAP, too lazy to log in)

Easy. Place the blessed editors on a Waterboard and see how long it takes them to agree it's torture.... Not very long at all I suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempting for us to both engage in a more civil discussion. However, I do not believe that we should rephrase the RfC statement because we disagree on whether or not conservatives view waterboarding as torture. I provided those links and you debated them. An outside editor also provided a source for the claim. As I said before, I think you are in the minority in believing that Cheney and O'Reilly believe waterboarding to be torture.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I changed my mind. I removed the broad term 'many conservatives' from the sentence since it is not the best term possible. Afterall, I'm an independent and I don't view waterboading as torture. The debate clearly has two sides to it and to characterize the proponents as being only conservative would not be as accurate as the reality.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral at all - - it is a continuation of the argument on that page - editing. Your personal political affiliations should be irrelevant to your editing. 24.7.91.244 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about broad groups. Individuals, especially anonymous ones online, don't count.--Chaser - T 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New edit per RfC suggestion

I have changed the first sentence to become more balanced as suggested by both outsiders who've responded from the RfC. Also, I removed the refrence from the Tunisia incident since it was never done in the context of extracting information--only dunking people's heads under water for the fun of it. That's clearly torture, but since it was done without any interrogation it wouldn't be waterboarding by the CIA's definition so it would be un-neutral to allow it as a source.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the Tunisia refrence is back in the article. I'm going to remove it again, since it clearly only states "submersion of head in water" and not "submersion during interrogation" which is waterboarding. What the Tunisia incident describes is water torture, not waterboarding. We need to move the refrence to the water torture article instead.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored it. I fail to see how not asking questions while doing it makes it not relevant or how you reason that if they ask questions at the same that it is not torture. The water is the primary torture element. Unless they have especially bad breath, the fact that questions are asked is irrelevant to its status as torture. 24.7.91.244 20:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The water is the primary torture element So I guess that means that we should have the squirt gun page redirect to the waterboarding page. Intent is what matters. The Bush admin calls waterboarding an enhanced interrogation technique. When there's no interrogation taking place, then soldiers are only dunking people in water because they hate them or to get their jollies. That's something that everyone would agree to be torture. However with waterboarding we have a significant group of people who classify it as an interrogation technique, not a torture technique. So it's not accurate to use it as a source for the people who think that waterboarding is torture--the reference indicated water-torture, no interrogation involved. Waterboarding does not equal water torture. They are two very different things. But I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over this refrence. We'll let other editors decide if it belongs. However, I will oppose any attempt at building off of that source on this article, since it doesn't belong.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

intent is what matters, that is an ignorant thing to say. Pain and Suffering is what matters. Harm is what matters, psychological damage is what matters - CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT is what matters. Whether someone is or is not asking questions, in English, or in Klingon, is irrelevant - it is still torture. Maybe you would only consider it torture if the practitioner was standing on one leg and wore odd socks. This is your stupidest reasoning yet. 24.7.91.244 22:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

And you will get opposed and reverted over and over and over by almost every other editor as has happened since you came in here pedalling your lies, blanking, vandalizing, editing peoples talk and going solo in your crusade of revisionism. I will oppose you at every step of the way as you continue your role as a torture apologist. 24.7.91.244 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, calling me a torture apologist is out of line. And back off the whole "pedalling your lies, blanking, vandalizing" crap. You're out of line here. I'm also going to remind you that there have been several editors supportive of my suggestions. Further, you need reminding of the fact that the NPOV section on this talk page wasn't started by me. I've warned you about the personal attacks before--I've had enough--you're going to be reported.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is not out of line. You may not like it being said, but it is not out of line, you are crusading as a torture apologist. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs are available for 1-lies, 2-blanking, 3-vandalizing, 4-editing peoples talk. Bellowed has been reeking havoc, trying everyone's patience in his relentless crusade against consensus. His behaviour is raising tempers. Unlike this user, I am prepared to source content in articles - AND allegations made in an argument. Yes they are strong claims, but they are also true, and verifiable. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors already do not assume good faith with your contributions on waterboarding, as is shown clearly in talk, and more so by the constant reverts applied to your edits there - by many editors - not just me. You do not have a good reputation on waterboarding. That very angry response of mine (which I admit in hindsight was too far) was a direct result of you making it clear you would oppose my edits at every turn - I responded in kind. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my talk and blanking things.

linkcut- DIFF 1 - Most of what you deleted was unrelated to something I agreed to leave off later - the so called personal info. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

linkcut DIFF 2 - As Diff one - over deletion. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

linkcut DIFF 3 - Unneccessary deletion. This text was required to rebut your insinuations that I introduced private into - and showed that whatever it contained was ex-wiki. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

linkcut DIFF 4 - Deleted my complaint about you casting aspertions on editors who choose not to register (anonymous editors), in addition to the Privacy stuff which is a different arguement I agreed with you on removing. It is not your place to edit other peoples talk based on what you consider has a point to it. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lying repeatedly 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

linkcut DIFF 5 Lied about deleting I never deleted anything that actually had a point to it, I beg to differ, you deleted my complaint about you casting aspertions on editors who choose not to register (anonymous editors), in addition to the Privacy stuff which is a different arguement I agreed with you on. It is not your place to edit other peoples talk based on what you consider has a point to it. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

linkcut DIFF 6 Continued to lie about it. 24.7.91.244 23:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As some of the diffs contain what might be personal information, and Bellowed does not want this published, I have agreed to remove them - but only on the condition that I do not need to use them to defend myself against accusations of making baseless allegations. The proof is there, should anyone ask. 24.7.91.244 05:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is fair.--Chaser - T 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whatever the merits of the various complaints above, this situation has significantly cooled, at least for the IP (Bellowed hasn't been editing for a few hours). Anyway, I would hope that we can restrain from calling each other names on this very controversial article. Commenting on other editors does not advance the discussion. Commenting on the article and the issues editors raise does advance that discussion. As to the issues raised above, lets just try to drop the whole matter and get down to business. And I do mean business. No more calling people anything apologists, no more accusing each other of lying and all that. If anyone wants to edit others' comments on this talk page, I suggest they read Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and try to follow that guide.--Chaser - T 06:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Belated comment to User:Bellowed: One other possibility is that waterboarding is a torture used in interrogations. The reason I say this is that in the military I heard stories from other soldiers about ways of "making prisoners talk" - to get urgently needed tactical information, like where is the prisoner's unit and what are they planning. Punching, scrotum crushing, cigarette burns, mock executions, even killing another prisoner in front of the interrogated man were reported (informally) to me. The purpose was not to vent US soldier's frustration (that would be covered under war crimes) but to elicit "military intelligence".

So the question is either (1) whether torture is ethically valid as an interrogation technique or (2) how severe may the interrogators make the discomfort or pain or fear when trying to make prisoner talk? I submit that these are not only legal questions but also ethical questions. --Uncle Ed 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to RfC

• Comment - A small number of individuals in the U.S. government consider it "not torture" and most others consider it "torture." The minority opinion, laughable and illogical it might seem, is worthy of mention, as agents of the current U.S. regime is apparently either using this technique or contracting it out to third parties. Just state exactly who thinks waterboarding is not a form of torture and make reference to official statements of this. The new coinage "enhanced interrogation technique" should definitely not be substituted for "torture" (though it's fine to have an article about the term and its use) as it's a clear effort at manipulating language (and, consequently, opinion) a la Orwell. The lead is strongly skewed in favor of the "not torture" camp, which is quite miniscule vis-a-vis world opinion. Badagnani 03:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had to support the pov of the "not torture camp" with statements from Cheney and others. And we don't really know for sure if this POV is miniscule compared to world opinion. Nobody has ever provided a source stating that the world overwhelmingly believes that it's torture. All we have on the page is the letter of 100 attorneys and McCain's opinion. That's certinaly not evidence of an overwhelming majority, or even a majority.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop lying again - there is no such statement by Cheney, he was not refering to waterboarding. You offered NO STATEMENTS FROM ANYONE. We had the state department saying it was torture also - but you kept blanking it. 24.7.91.244 21:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheney never retracted his statement. He clearly talked about submerging someone's head during interrogation--which is the definition of waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique. I also offered the CIA source, Giuliani, O'Reilly, the Alberto Gonzales memo, and several others. You first claimed that I have never provided any sources from the "not torture camp", which was a lie, since I did it weeks ago on this talk page. Then, after I provided some additional sources yesterday, you claimed that none of them contained anything about waterboarding not being torture. I'm not the one lying here.

And since you continue, despite all the evidence, to claim that nobody believes that waterboarding isn't torture, I ask why is this subject so controversial? Why is there so much news and debate about it? If there's debate, doesn't there have to be two sides?|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again - the statement was clarified by the whitehouse, Cheney went along with it. The subject is very controversial because a state is engaging in torture, one that was once known as a crusader against such a thing. The ramifications of "Waterboarding is Torture" are immense, a significant number of people, from agents, right up to the President face a real risk of prosecution for war crimes under international law - including one element, the ICC, to which they can't opt-out of the risk due to universal jurisdiction. With such immense ramifications, many, such as yourself, are trying to twist fact - some knowingly, and some unknowingly, in a way that does not result in their leader being labeled as a torturer and their administration as a rogue state. The implications of this are mind-blowing. By the way, SUMBMERGING someones head in water is not waterboarding - read the article, that is dunking, it may or may not be torture (I would think it is) - it is radically different and not as severe. Guilini did not say it is not torture, he said it is acceptable. O'Reilly - where, reference please. The torture memo is discussed in the article, read it. the CIA reference is (or was?) mentioned - but is both anonymous - it could have been sponge bob, and even if not - a torturer saying it is not torture is mentionable and relevant, even required - but does not carry any weight to remove the torture definition. 24.7.91.244 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So submerging someone's head isn't waterboarding? So I guess you're admitting the Tunisia ref, which you support so adamantly, doesn't belong in the waterboarding article since it's submerging the head in water?

And yeah, I know that waterboarding is actually putting cellophane over someone's head and then pouring the water--no facial contact with the water whatsoever--over in 14 seconds, all that good stuff. But Cheney talked about using water in the context of interrogation. Big difference. And Cheney never retracted his statement. But since you clearly don't believe that Cheney claimed waterboarding not to be torture, then I have to ask--why did you never debate this being in the article?

Though the Bush administration has never formally acknowledged its use, Vice President Dick Cheney told an interviewer that he did not believe "a dunk in water" to be a form of torture but rather a "very important tool" for use in interrogations, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[11]

Clearly, if Cheney wasn't ever referring to waterboarding, but dunking in water, then we should create a whole new article called Dunking in water and move the Cheney quote there.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 22:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not debate that actually, I added the important clarification. You clearly have no idea what the subject matter is about. Cellophane? That's impermeable and wouldn't do it. A DUNK in this context may well be a form of torture, is widely used in interrogation by torture, is not as severe, is not waterboarding, but is close enough to warrant Tunisia. Dick Cheny is not a quiet man, if his administration (and it is very much a joint regime right now) clarified it and he let that stand - it is GONE. It is mentionable only when the full contextual reality of the clarification is included. The fact that someone is also practising (poor) interrogation at the same time as torture does not mean it is not torture. If I am singing dixie and putting you on a rack I am BOTH singing dixie (badly) AND torturing you. I am not just singing dixie. PhD yeah right.... that is not exactly difficult to comprehend. This is why the article describes it as both torture and interrogation. In essense waterboarding is using torture to perform an interrogation. 24.7.91.244 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The three citations that source the "torture" statement are used, in this context, as primary sources. They constitute a synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. In other words, original research. To disallow any consideration of a significant minority view that it is not torture violates WP:NPOV, and to state that it is torture in Wikipedia's editorial voice is improper, and rather Orwellian itself. I'm not so sure that the proposed wiki article as a substitute is the greatest solution, but it might work. As Bellowed indicates, claims of consensus must be sourced. A reliable source stating that the consensus has been determined to be on the side that it is torture would be the proper citation for that statement. And not just an op-ed. Someone who did scientific polling, or some other reliable statistical method of determination. - Crockspot 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bellowed has offered no reasonable source to backup claims that it is not torture - or that anyone actually has this opinion (aside from the tortures who have to have this opinion to stay out of jail). If we required the standard you are asking for, would it thus not mean nothing is torture per the UN convention, unless it is all itemized - with each torture method listed individually. I strongly disagree that it is leaning towards OR, it is common sense readying of a number of international and US laws. The law says it is torture. Use of common sense is allowed in writing things, it is very obvious to anyone reading new publications that the world considers it torture - a glance at goggle news will show this, or any other compilation of global news outlets - as opposed to just US opinion and interpretations disguises as news outlets. As an aside the restoration of torture, specifically in the guise of so called enhanced interrogation, is what was turned the world so solidly against the United States, even its allies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, i think it is fair to state that the vast majority of the human race consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. 24.7.91.244 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the official position of the United States government is that it is not torture. Certainly the leaders of the Executive branch hold this view. That is not an insignificant view. - Crockspot 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably, maybe - I wish we knew - but we just don't know as they will neither admit to it, and won't state it is not torture. They are engaged in amazing verbal gymnastics in avoiding it. Media reports continue to leak that there are significant internal conflicts both in the executive and some of its agencies on this very matter. I would think that if they had such a position, it would be made public - as there can be no intelligence value in not mentioning it as everyone is well aware that it is used by the US. The only reasonable explanations for just a position not being known can be that they know it is illegal and torture - or that the jury is out and the internal battle about it is ongoing. If such a *explicit* position existed it should be included in very the first paragraph, but should not affect the use of the word torture except as a rebuttal (eg , the US position however is that this is not the case), as a torturer saying what they are doing is not torture is suspect to the extreme. 24.7.91.244 21:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The confusion, even obfuscation, about the administration's position is an important point. I think there are several ways to interpret Cheney's statement. First, that he was saying the US doesn't practice waterboarding, which is contradicted by various media reports cited in the article (invariably quoting anonymous CIA contacts). Second, that the US uses waterboarding, but that it doesn't view it as torture or illegal under unnamed "international treaties". Frankly, Snow refused to clarify this, only indicating that Cheney wasn't talking about specific techniques. So I guess that's a third possible interpretation. I think acknowledging this confusion is better than trying to tease out a clear position from the administration's unclear comments.--Chaser - T 05:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Headline: US prez puts end to CIA torture

Link

Bush bans torture from CIA questioning

US prez puts end to CIA torture

link

"Officials would not provide any details on specific interrogation techniques that the CIA may use under the new order. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods, stress positions and - most controversially - the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding." Bmedley Sutler 08:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I should emphasize that nobody knows if this includes waterboarding, so let's not take this to assume that it's the case or that they classify it as torture. Actually, I doubt this is the case. I wouldn't mind this information being in the article somehow, as long as the context is that nobody knows if this includes waterboarding or not.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It's in the article now, and Human Rights Watch's statement that the real answers lie in the classified document is prominently featured at the end of the document.--Chaser - T 05:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Important Source

I'm just starting to read it now:

Rorschach and Awe

"America's coercive interrogation methods were reverse-engineered by two C.I.A. psychologists who had spent their careers training U.S. soldiers to endure Communist-style torture techniques. The spread of these tactics was fueled by a myth about a critical "black site" operation." by Katherine Eban VF.COM EXCLUSIVE July 17, 20 Bmedley Sutler 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. On page two, an air force psychologist says about experiencing waterboarding: "terrifying" and "you go into an oxygen panic" and implied that he felt real fear of being killed. Also, on page 4 the article indicates Rumsfeld vetoed the idea when it came across his desk. I didn't see any other relevant bits.--Chaser - T 05:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oxygen Panic, Scuba Analogy

An indirect sidebar - As a very active Scuba diver, I suspect I have an idea what it is like (at a much lower intensity), if you are very low on air - but not out - or if you are overexerting at significant depth, your regulator appears not be delivering enough air flow (overexerting) or isn't (low pressure) - it is a terrifying experience. Not the implications (no air), but the feeling of panic and the physical pain as you try and pull more. In the case of overexertion, this panic causes the body to try and pull a vastly faster air flow rate, which makes the situation worse and worse in a vicious circle. In a low air situation, obviously it depletes to zero far faster than otherwise. Divers are thought to STOP. THINK. SLOWDOWN. I encourage you to speak to any diver friends you have... it is horrific. I don't state this for the article's use, just as an interesting aside for editors trying to understand why people refer to a wet rag as torture. Non divers don't really have much exposure to the concept of consumption rates - and how wildly they vary with exertion, stress, panic etc, they can alter many fold. 24.7.91.244 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I learned when I started diving that really surprised me was what triggers the impulse to breathe? it is not needing Oxygen at all. Its actually a chemical measurement of the CO2 content in vessels in/at the lung. The body breathes when the CO2 level rises, it has no means of registering Oxygen content. With a wet rag on the mouth, I would say (via OR) that the body's inability to rid itself of CO2 is what drives the terror and gag reflexes, and causes the body to demand oxygen much sooner than normally, and much more violently. A non diver, or non-medic probably wouldn't get the CIA source saying the average for agents in training is 14s. It truly is an exquisite and vicious torture, and though reasons not generally understood by the layperson, is a lot more than a wet rag or a dunk, just as sea sickness is a sometimes severe physical problem caused by the mind and body thinking the whole world is moving and they are not. As with many things, there is a lot more than meets the eye. 24.7.91.244 06:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wanted - experienced archivist for Talk

This page is even slowing Firefox, an experienced archivist who knows how to archive correctly, without starting a row, is needed here. Thx 24.7.91.244 10:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New intro

Since Bellowed asked, I want to discuss this here. I actually really like User:ArnoldReinhold's new intro. Instead of getting bogged down in subjective definitions, we open the article with indisputable fact. --Eyrian 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My big problem with it was that it was far, far too specific. Articles should always begin with the lead being more genreral and then move to the more specific. I'm sure there's a recommendation on formatting Wikipedia articles which supports this line of reasoning; afterall, this is a general rule amongst all academic papers. The reason we need such a progressive movement from broad to specific, is that it's far too difficult to cram everything into the lead sentence and some very important specifics are left out. Like interrogation. And this can make the sentence un-neutral: there was no indication from that sentence that waterboarding is used to obtain information. Since it contained nothing about its use in interrogation, we only had a partial description of what happens in waterboarding; partial, because it contained no information about its use in interrogation. In that light, AR's lead was last week's sentence in a new form. Becuase it contained descriptions of torture and indicated nothing about the reasoning or circumstances when using such methods, we were back to last week when we had: waterboarding is torture, only in a new form. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's not indisputable about the first sentence? There are two undisputable sides, aferall--the Executive Branch and its critics.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 00:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that the intro should be general, but I simply don't see a way to make that happen in a way that addresses both sides. I think there is a legitimate concern over the use of "enhanced interrogation technique", and I'd really rather avoid classification in the first few sentences. The lead still contains all the same info about the ways it is used, just presented in a way that I think is more neutral. --Eyrian 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words. Weasel sentence. Doublespeak, and that wonderful phrase from Edward Heath, being economical with the truth are how I would describe it to be honest. And there are not two disputing sides of note, the executive branch is not saying anything about the matter. And why since this all blew up the US forces had all personnel in Cuba remove any personally identifying marks. Though were too late - a book by an former victim is currently being translated to US English for release late winter with names. There's no trace of usable information saying the Executive thinks it is not torture - there's a lot of circumstantial (and not yet usable) clues that it DOES think it is torture. Please do not try and present it as two sides, or at least help us to understand where you are coming from with sources. With due deference to WP:OWN, I have seen Arnold editing here for a long time, and providing constructive edits on the subject matter for a long time, I do not see him as engaging in flagrant violations of concensus - and this can be backed up by the fact that he did not come blasting into to the edit war on talk recently. Though a loaded phrase in the current context, with AGR I assume good faith editing. 24.7.91.244 02:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Bellowed 7/24/7 UTC

Despite my sincere efforts to de-escalate, after I went to far in the fighting - Pipe Three E Pipe Underscore Pipe Underscore V V E PIPE Bracket has shown no interest in either the olive branch, nor my suggestion of a time out for both of us. The reason for my ANI proposal was simple, should just one of us bow out it will further POV. Accordingly I have reverted the edits of Bellowed, which I do not agree with. The fact that this article is again drifting back to its pre-Bellowed status, with zero involvement from me, tends to show that consensus remains strongly against the direction Bellowed keeps trying to take it. I do appreciate and welcome other views - which is why we have an RfC, and have I been trying to take them on board in my editing behaviour - and not editing at times for the same reason - rational and helpful direction from outsiders, and Chaser; however I feel I had to revert Bellowed as the use of politically correct doublespeak and weasel words were coming back in. This really proves my point about consensus.. Even 2 days ago when I was grudgingly editing away from the established article trying to build consensus, I was being reverted back to straight torture by multiple hit and run edits (US and Germany). 24.7.91.244 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I still intend to try and stay away, and will not be actively editing this for a bit, with the exception of undoing major damage - this does not mean I intend to revert him everywhere - I don't I need to cool a bit, therefore I request that other interested editors spell me for a while as this has been exhausting. 24.7.91.244 02:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, please be careful and observe my unrelated copyediting. If you want to undo POV work of another person, please do not use broad reverts to roll back the article to a version that predates my work. Instead, manually edit the portions that you want to work with. My edits have nothing to do with the POV issue that you are dealing with. Kanodin 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep - sorry, I have been watching it in awe, you are honestly scaring me! Thank you! Aside from the terrifyingly good command of the language it has been admirable how you just worked away quietly, with rocks and mud flying all around you. 24.7.91.244 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited it back to Arnold's last post, later than your last work (I think?) 24.7.91.244 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Cheney from intro

I removed the Cheney 'dunking' part from the intro. The WH specifically denied that Cheney was talking about Waterboarding, so it doesn't belong in the intro. I think there should be a whole section on this interview, what he said, and then the WH 'spin' trying to claim he meant otherwise. Bmedley Sutler 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC still there

Can the RFC be closed now? Eiler7 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess. 24.7.91.244 10:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

First, stating that it "IS USED" is inaccurate...it's not always used for punishment, for instance. Therefore, phrasing it that way is a weasel word. Second, let's back off all the adjectives, like severe, and merely express the facts. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is used for gathering information and punishing unwilling victims. If it isn't severe nobody will be intimidated. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, merely express the facts - Like Waterboarding is a form of torture used to... 24.7.91.244 10:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is used for that; however not in all cases. The CIA never uses it to punish or intimidate. Therefore, stating that it IS used for this purpose implies that it is done so in all cases. We're not going to hold the US to the standards of the Cambodian govt. and the current edit does just that.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again. --Eleemosynary 22:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "waterboarding is used... or intimidate". I don't think it's always used to punish people, so a disjunction is appropriate. As to a "severe" gag reflex, I don't see any sources indicating that. They do indicate that waterboarding induces a severe fear of drowning to the point of psychological trauma.--Chaser - T 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question lists possible purposes and they tend to overlap. Someone who is subjected to waterboarding for interrogation is likely to be intimidated as well, as are others who know what has happened. So "and" is appropriate. Also, when I floss my rear molars, it sometimes produces a gag reflex. All the sources seem to agree that waterboarding produces a gag reflex causing fear of imminent death. If that doesn't justify the adjective "severe," what would? Here is a source that uses the phrase "uncontrollable gag reflex": [8] --agr 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, "is used" uses the passive voice. It fails to acknowledge that "someone" does the waterboarding. How about: "Historically, individuals used waterboarding for..."? Separate the various options with "or" in order to convey that people use waterboarding for differing purposes. "Or" introduces a logical disjunction, which does not prevent a person from using waterboarding for two or more purposes simultaneously. Some people use it to interrogate, to intimidate; or to punish. As a compromise, perhaps we should do away with the "purposes" statement altogether, or break up the purposes into individual sentences to avoid the "and/or" controversy. —Kanodin 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please read the WP:3RR policy! I believe some individuals are already in violation!. Second of all, I have revert the article to .|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) edition. This does not mean I agree with this version, but it is the least WP:POV piece. Please discuss changes on this page, than insert once a consensus is reached. Thank you. Shoessss |  Chat  03:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the version you reverted to being discussed here either. I disagree with Bellowed assertion that it is a weasel word. Some people will not be happy until waterboarding is downgraded to tickling, and I am not willing to see that Politically motivated or politically correct editing further damage this article with revisionism. 24.7.91.244 09:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This tactic employed the use of violent force and the inducement of terror (Terrorism) to obtain a confession or information. The use of the word COERCE is entirely appropriate as a minimum. I think ideally it should be stronger, obtaining confessions by the use of torture. This is not POV, it is incredibly well documented cited and sourced. There is not one iota of supporting fact to the contrary in fact. As we have hashed out over and over ad infinitum, because something casts a party, the torturers or a regime behind them, in a bad light does not make it unfairly biased against them, and POV. 24.7.91.244 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone wishes to continue to insert gross POV by toning down well documented fact, then editors like me will push the other way and bring this back to the original Waterboarding is a form of torture state that has survived consensus for a long time. After a rather nasty fight, an extremely delicate balance was achieved, and we all backed down - but if someone wishes to re-enter the stage POV pushing, then it is reasonable to expect the rest of us to work to prevent the POVing of the article. Additionally, as the row died down, a rather brilliant copy editor came in - if we go back to the see-saw edit war, all that work will be lost. Before weighing in on a side that wants to dispute the very delicately balanced apple cart achieved recently, you should look back at recent history (1 month) and see what it's going to start up again. Thank You. 24.7.91.244 09:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have missed something. There was an edit war over the last two days, resulting in a week block for Eleemonsynary, and now the consensus directly above seems not to favor the version you reverted to. I'm not sure the version that I just reverted to is perfect, but it does not contain original research, such as "severe". Are there any sources for using the adjective severe? I don't think that there are. - Crockspot 12:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty minor spat compared to..., but yes, I didn't realize the level of it (3RR). I'd welcome you and others to go into the severe issue, I won't edit that as a main protagonist, though I suspect you may be right. As to Coerce, I really think it belongs - severe not so - inappropriate adjective per Chaser I agree. So in summary, I agree there seems to be a consensus against severe, but certainly not on the issue of removing coercion. 24.7.91.244 12:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemonsynary got blocked for a different article, though I assume the 3RR here also counted to it as insinuated by the blocking editor. Looks like he went for 1,000,000RR there :/ 24.7.91.244 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. So many edit wars to keep track of. I think a version somewhere between the two is acceptable. I don't have a particular problem with "coerce". - Crockspot 12:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He would have been gotten here anyway (3RR) as I suspect Chaser will not be so forgiving if we all go nuclear again. Severe Make it so, I have to watch myself for WP:OWN so won't inject myself everywhere I want to ;-) 24.7.91.244 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added "coerce", and adjusted for grammar. Maybe this compromise will satisfy everyone. - Crockspot 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied. I'd also be OK with "severe" in light of the source above.--Chaser - T 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current version as well.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I think I need to clarify some things here. First, no one has, as of yet, made more than three reverts in 24 hours. That said, the three-revert rule guides against edit-warring, and in favor of discussing changes on talk pages as above. Far better is to revert once or not at all and leave a talk page message about the change to start or continue a dialog and leave the page in whatever version it happens to be in until the dispute is resolved. As to my role, my twin goals are to write quality articles (as an editor) and to create and keep a productive editing environment (as an editor and an administrator). Sometimes, I have to do ugly things like block people or protect articles to do that, but it is generally a last resort. As to this article, I'm involved enough in the content dispute that I would prefer to pass any blocks onto another sysop (though I will report people for policy violations if they create a non-productive editing environment here). Wikipedia sysops sometimes block and so forth to prevent disruption, but we don't have the power to resolve content disputes in that capacity, and we aren't, or at least try not to be, wiki-policemen.--Chaser - T 17:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gag reflex / Death Imminent

Currently this section reads like the gag reflex makes the subject believe death is comming. I think we need to reword this (preferably keeping its tone the same so as not to start a row)

  It produces a gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage.

Can we find a better way to say that?

How about just dropping the gag reflex bit completely (or using it lower down), also - and dropping ideally and doing something like:?

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing permanent physical damage.

Actually, I'd also like to drop not causing permanent physical damage, as that is a bit suspect (lung damage is possible), and seems to be a bit weasely trying to justify it. so:

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent.

? 24.7.91.244 14:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but there's no sources that state that lung damage has resulted from someone being waterboarded. The intent is to obtain a confession without causing physical harm whatsoever. And that, however, is well documented. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking Lung Damage up with me here, I appreciate that. I'll fork that discussion later; however the final suggested revision removes all that to leave

  It makes the subject believe his or her death is imminent.

Can we go with that for now as that short line represents the only way I can write it in a form that is not disputed here? I know I can source permanent damage (maybe not specifically lung), but for now I'd just like to revise to the above and move on. 24.7.91.244 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't find that acceptable at all. It dilutes the truth. Pointing a gun at a person's head could make "the subject believe his or her death is imminent." By all accounts waterboarding produces a physical reaction that is much more intense. The source I cited above called it "an uncontrollable gag reflex." There is no reason to remove this fact from the intro.--agr 04:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is arguably the most important part of the article, because it explains the pathology of the procedure. Therefore, agr is right. Either leave in gag-reflex, or say something that specifies that the victim inhales and swallows water--otherwise, waterboarding is simply a shower. I mean, come on--waterboarding simulates drowning. The description of what sensations the victim feels reveals a lot about why the procedure produces suffering; "death is imminent" is a vague belief state.

The statement about ideally not producing permanent physical damage has the burden of proof. As a counterexample, we can imagine cases where a person will use the procedure to asphyxiate a victim. It needs a credible source that attributes purpose to every future case of waterboarding. —Kanodin 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll drop that and instead see if I can source the statement better. Thanks for diving in, I was feeling lonely. 24.7.91.244 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agents of the Dutch East India Company example

Why is this example nothing like waterboarding? —Kanodin 16:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The text in question:

Agents of the Dutch East India Company used a form of waterboarding during the Amboyna Massacre in 1623. At that time, it consisted of wrapping cloth around a victim's head, after which the torturers "poured the water softly upon his head until the cloth was full, up to the mouth and nostrils, and somewhat higher, so that he could not draw breath but he must suck in all the water." [34] In one case, the torturer applied water three or four times successively until the victim's "body was swollen twice or thrice as big as before, his cheeks like great bladders, and his eyes staring and strutting out beyond his forehead." "

It doesn't seem to me that this is anything like waterboarding as described in the article. According to the first paragraph, the simplest definition of "waterboarding" is "immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning." But the DEIC's torture doesn't seem to have been geared towards simulating drowning; while it involved pouring water over the victim's head, this seems to have been primarily a way of forcing the water into his body. Slightly more in-depth, waterboarding "produces a gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage." Again, the DEIC's torture doesn't seem to have endeavored to do either one of those. It forced (painfully) water into the victim's body, which is much different than just simulating drowning. Moreover, this was actual physical damage, not just psychological: the victim would become bloated (horrifically), which I'm certain caused either lasting damage or death. No? Korossyl 05:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that the DEIC method is just a form of the generic water cure. Korossyl 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'll agree that the VOC agents' method is certainly not waterboarding in its modern form. But I think that historically, it is a significant precursor to waterboarding. In addition to the injestion and bloating associated with water cure mentioned above, it also features elements now associated with waterboarding, like the cloth placed over the victim's face and the added involvement of suffocation - although yes, in this case, suffocation is used in conjunction with injestion rather than by itself as a source of pain. To put it somewhat crudely - if water cure (which dates from late medieval times or earlier) could be summed up as "Drink all this water!", then the VOC agents' method (which dates from the early modern period) would be "Drink all this water or drown in it!", after which contemporary waterboarding would be "Drown in it!". It was for this reason that I'd called it "a form of" waterboarding rather than straight "waterboarding". But since it doesn't seem clear enough, I think it'll be best if I edit the opening sentence to make more explicit the precursor status of this method. DanDs 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Korossyl 01:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the water cure article, which makes it clear for me. I agree with the "precursor" wording. —Kanodin 06:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

KSM SECTION

In light of all the good info on waterboarding and KSM in this month's New Yorker, I added it in, but created a KSM section to contain it. I also moved the Cheney interview to that section. We will probably need to upgrade the ref tags to fact tags...I'll do that whenever I have some more time.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Letter?

This statement has been inserted in the description of KSM's treatment, and the VP's approval of said treatment: "Captured along with Mohammed, was a letter from bin Laden,[34] which led officials to think that he knew where the Al Qaeda founder was hiding.[35]" This seems to be nothing more than a statment inserted as if to say 'so it's ok, because we might have found ObL.' Yes, a letter does seem to have been found, and duly footnoted. But this is a statement of fact that has no bearing at all on waterboarding per se; the statement has been inserted to argue that waterboarding KSL was ok. Not the same thing. In other words, how does this sentence further the description of waterboarding in this article? I'm removing it unless there is a good NPOV reason to keep it. I'll give it a few days. Morgaledh 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree about total removal of the letter fact. It was captured along with KSM before he was waterboarded--obviously there's a connection there. Even the New Yorker-- which ran an anti "enhanced interrogation" piece back in August-- noted that before KSM was subjected to interrogation, the letter was found and speculated that it was the reason for his more brutal interrogation. So even though it was a negative piece on the CIA's methods, they even thought to put that fact in there.|3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 19:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Navy Seals

An editor recently added an uncited paragraph claiming that Navy Seals used waterboarding during training to teach how to handle drowning. There is no citation, so it is impossible to check whether this claim is true. And it certainly does not belong in the lead section. Furthermore, a search to try to confirm it turned up the exact opposite from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html:

In the post-Vietnam period, the Navy SEALs and some Army Special Forces used a form of waterboarding with trainees to prepare them to resist interrogation if captured. The waterboarding proved so successful in breaking their will, says one former Navy captain familiar with the practice, "they stopped using it because it hurt morale."

In other words, they tried "a form of waterboarding" as training to try to prepare the Seals for torture at the hands of the enemy. Clearly the trainees knew that they were not going to be hurt by their fellow officers, so the comparison to its use as torture is ridiculous to begin with. But even when the trainees knew with absolute certainty that they were not going to be injured, waterboarding was so successful at "breaking their will" that they stopped doing it. I hope that the editor that added this will remember the importance of using Reliable Sources and not Original Research in the future, and will try to add properly-cited accurate text. Thank you, Jgui 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also reorganized some text and changed a heading to "Use by the George W Bush Administration" since that is when it has all occurred and since it was all being pushed by his administration. A lot of text appeared in the KSM subsection that belonged in the "Bush" section, so I moved it there. I didn't delete any text except this "Nevertheless, ABC News published information that contradicted the aforementioend version of events. ABC reported that: According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in." This fragment made no sense since it was left over from an earlier edit that someone had made; I incorporated the info in the two narratives of how long KSM was able to tolerate waterboarding before confessing. Cheers, Jgui 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion

It seems to me, just from this discussion, that ONLY those who are politically minded and have a political stake in torture refer to water-boarding as NOT torture. Those that actually study it think otherwise. It's as if George Bush, Alberto Gonzalez, Rush Limbaugh and try-as-he-might conservatie comedian Dennis Miller are somehowe legitimate and partial obvservers...ha! EVERY human rights organization in the world, including the various UN agencies, correctly understand you don't need beatings, choppings or burning to constitute "Torture". If the US gov't wanted to use red-hot pokers to torture, I can see the same above figures crying "well, it's not REALLY torutre...". Yeah. DavidMIA 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But there is no US law saying chopping people up is torture, so it is not torture. LMAO. ;-) 24.7.56.29 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And please no one put that latest Bushshit (Oct 6 2007) up at the start of the article. Bush saying it is not torture is NOT CREDIBLE. Biased source, Brain dead source. F***ing psychopath - 700,000 dead iraqis, he is catching up on the Armenian genocide. A murderer saying killing someone illegally is not murder is nonsense, and only bears mention as a footer - it can not provide WEIGHT to an argument, and thus neither should Bush's assertions that torture is not torture. Bad news Mr Future Hague Retiree, Murder is defined as EXTRAjudical killing, however the definition of torture is NOT dependent on whether it is legal somewhere, or whether some crackhead murdering bastard in the us government interprets it accordingly. 24.7.56.29 02:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose him coming out of the blue and say that "waterboarding is torture" cannot be used as a source for this article then? Please read your post again once your head has cooled off. That said, I would have to say whatever his view is on waterboarding is a "significant" source if there was a section describing viewpoints about this method (which doesn't exist). --BirdKr 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisionism reverted backwards

I have halted the recent move to try and delouse the topic by progressively moving the description of torture downwards, and subtle attempts to make it seems that only some authorities consider it torture. Look through the history and archives of this discussion page two things are clear.

• No credible reference or source has ever been produced saying waterboarding is not torture.
• It seems that the editors who have been trying to sanitize, tone down reality, revise fact, or deliberately obfuscate and mislead - have been Americans, this is somewhat suspect in and of itself.

Yet another round of secret US government memos have emerged further verifying the ongoing torture committed by the United States of America which has no resorted to hiding behind secrecy laws when caught out kidnapping and torturing. The facts are overwhelming, The United States are torturers, the United States is waterboarding, and waterboarding is torture. There is nothing on this earth that supports a claim otherwise, so we should not be sanitizing this article and misleading people with US propaganda. Wiki is not Fox Corporation, its mission is not to protect war criminals in the administration, army and intelligence services from prosecution abroad. Its an encyclopaedia of the truth - not twisted facts designed to support criminals. Inertia Tensor 11:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What credible source says waterboarding is torture? John Sifton? His rationale that it's a mock execution is plainly not true. A mock execution is when they line up a firing squad and act as though they're going to shoot. (The Iranians did that during the hostage crisis, but the usual critics didn't seem to mind then.) Whether or not waterboarding qualifies as torture, there's nothing that says the terrorist is led to believe he's being executed.

This isn't to say I favor removing that line. It's important to remember where people stand. I understand that people like to believe John Sifton cares about human rights anyway, and I don't expect to awaken them anytime soon.

This brings me to the new paragraph about the WWII interrogators. I don't see where it says they were talking about waterboarding. Nor do I see them saying the fascists today might be as amenable as the German scientists were.

When you say that the skeptics who've contributed to this article have been Americans, perhaps you mean, the skeptics are from the country that is fighting fascism. It bears recalling that Roosevelt and Churchill were initially called "imperialists" when they did so. Most of the so-called "human rights" activists back then changed their minds after the communists' alliance with Hitler came to an abrupt end. The National Lawyers Guild went from opposing U.S. involvement (which was still mostly limited at that time) to strident support that would later approve Japanese internment.

Here again, I'm not saying I expect you to agree with me on any of this -- at least not at the moment. Just understand that it's not universally acknowledged that any of the critics of the U.S. actually care about human rights. They don't. And in that light, this shouldn't be about anyone's belief in human rights. It's only about what's legal.

-- Randy2063 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time the US was different, it choose to fight fascism when the rest of the world chose to either ignore, or worse - collaborate. It also once lead the way for human rights (excepting the Americas of course). Now it hides behind secrecy laws when it gets caught out kidnapping and torturing. It is very rapidly devolving into fascism, the executive is above the law - one mention of National (in)security and case dropped, not matter how heinous the crime. The courts refuse to hear cases without comment. The government reads library records, spies on its own citizens, and suspends the most fundamental right of them all Habeas Corpus. If that is not fascist, what is? It has sadly become fascist in surrendering the very ideals it strives to protect. Arbitrary detentions, presidential declarations of guilt, internment without trial, torture, genocide in Iraq (what else do you call 700,000 dead?) come on.... I would agree with you as to many critics not caring a wit about human rights, but as you go on to say, It's only about what's legal. Torture is illegal, and torturers don't get to redefine the meaning of it as the US attempts to do. Sources, common sense and references do consider waterboarding to be a mock execution - you can hold your breath a lot longer on your own than you can when being waterboarded because the body believes it is drowning - that is a mock execution. The administration do not get to cancel common sense - it is sickening, the grotesque twisting and torturing of words and laws that the administration and its memos have been doing. There is one comfort though. Before the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave immunity to torturers, it was harder for the ICC to impose universal jurisdiction as the US could at least theoretically prosecute torturers, however now as the US is legally incapable of prosecuting, the International criminal court can very easily follow up later Inertia Tensor 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Habeas corpus is for people in the U.S. according to the decision in Johnson v. Eisentrager. The SCOTUS may try to fine tune that when Boumediene v. Bush comes up, but it's all proper as it stands now.

I don't think you understand how far the U.S. went from your stated ideals in WWII. Bush hasn't even come close to attempting the things Roosevelt did.

-- Randy2063 17:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to nitpick with tortured definitions, do I need to point out that the deliberate legal black hole situation of people being held in Cuba by US forces, in a manner that US courts say it is outside jurisdiction, would imply that the US is illegally holding people, as US jurisdiction and authority ends at your borders. And there is more than a few international laws / treaties that prohibit arbitrary detention. Habeas Corpus is not even needed, as there is no legal authority whatsoever for the US to be operating CONCENTRATION CAMPS on foreign territories. Torturing, Kidnapping, and operating concentration camps - it is torturing common sense. Inertia Tensor 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Being outside a court's jurisdiction doesn't mean absolute lawlessness. That's why the definition of torture is relevant to the subject of waterboarding. I'm sure you must understand that detaining people in a time of conflict is not exactly unheard of. The detention of civilians without trial would even be allowed for by the Fourth Geneva Convention were that ever ruled to apply to this conflict.

I suggest you refrain from the use of catch-phrases like "CONCENTRATION CAMPS." It won't change the fact that the U.S. is fighting fascism. Perhaps you should reread what I'd said above about the National Lawyers Guild.

-- Randy2063 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer I call it Death Camps, or perhaps Torture facilities? Or Gulags (as per AI)? I'm not going to down play reality to appease fascist regimes. The name suits a place where people are held without trial and tortured. It is a lot more than a gaol. Please do not insult my intelligence by stating that the US is fighting fascism - that is complete rubbish - the US has become a fascist state and has abandoned the rule of law. Inertia Tensor 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing detention of some persons known by all parties to be innocent civilians, who were simply purchased from war lords, merely to cover-up state terrorism is completely unacceptable during a time of armed conflict. There are a significant number of cases where innocent victims have been still held after their were cleared so as to prevent their speaking about their kidnapping ordeals and subsequent torture. Some extra-judicial detainees are still held though innocent, in fear that that will go to a battlefield (as some guilty parties have also done). Also, their continued detention in case they might retaliate is unjust - having been kidnapped and tortured, it is reasonable to expect them to retaliate given they have no legal recourse to justice. Applying that principle would mean most innocent people caught up on the War of Terror could never be released. Inertia Tensor 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What AI says in its fundraising propaganda isn't something I'd recommend repeating. Whether or not you're comfortable with the notion that we're fighting fascism isn't particularly important beyond the fact that it frames your introduction to this section quite nicely. (You've clearly ignored the nature of our enemy in this.) It is simply not true that the U.S. has abandoned the rule of law. That should be obvious from my references to Eisentrager, Boumediene and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

You expect the world to believe that the US is fighting fascists, when it has itself become a brutal fascist regime, responsible for 3/4 million deaths in Iraq alone. Inertia Tensor 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do you call it when the president uses signing statements to annul laws, when the judiciary throws out cases under the guise of State Secrets, when the government openly ignores countless laws. Sounds like a King, not a President of a republic to me. The United States only supports the rule of law when it suits it, it only supports Democracy when it suits it (Venezuela, Palestine etc).Inertia Tensor 23:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully expect the world to delude itself until just before it's too late. Some will wait too long because they think the U.S. will fight fascism for them. As I said above, "I'm only saying it's not universally acknowledged that any of the critics of the U.S. actually care about human rights. They don't. And in that light, this shouldn't be about anyone's belief in human rights. It's only about what's legal."

That number of "3/4 million deaths in Iraq alone" is bogus. Whatever the actual number of innocent victims is, most were killed by the enemy. The enemy doesn't get much criticism over it, but like I said, this never was about human rights.

You're completely mistaken about signing statements. The U.S. isn't the only country that uses them. Their purpose is to clarify the terms of a treaty, and this shows that the country expects to honor that treaty. Countries that don't use signing statements probably don't care what the details are because they know they won't be following them anyway.

-- Randy2063 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW: AI's fundraising propaganda should be treated with skepticism when used as a reference.

You've been misled if you really believe that about innocent people being held in GTMO for whatever reasons. The Uyghur captives in Guantanamo were determined not to be enemy combatants, not because they're nice people, but because their enemy is China and not the U.S. China doesn't see them the same way you do, and that's why AI (among others) have said we can't send them home.

-- Randy2063 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely well documented that some of those kidnapped and tortured in Guantanamo and elsewhere were acknowledged to be mistakes even by those genocidal psychopaths in the US regime. Those evil butchers have even admitted it to the German Government (The Macedonia/Albania kidnapping). Canadians, Germans, Italians - there is a long list. It may not be on Fox "news", but people would need to be living under a rock not to notice anyway. Only 48 hours back the US supreme court refused to look at one of the cases and hid behind the secrets that a lower appeal court settled for (aka embarassment). Inertia Tensor 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

CNN right now is showing an interview with a former US president saying "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, I don't think it.... I know it,", given that waterboarding is the most savage tactic approved by the administration (that we are sure about) - that means WATERBOARDING is what this former ruler is talking about Inertia Tensor 23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The capture of Khalid El-Masri was called a mistake, but not everyone agrees. Other than the Uyghurs, none of the detainees who've been taken to GTMO were acknowledged to be mistakes, and there were good reasons to think the Uyghurs should be detained.

You can't act like the U.S. is the only country being judged here. Those countries who stood aside and did nothing but complained, and those who actively or tacitly supported the fascists, they must be judged, too. It's true that the U.S. has made plenty of mistakes, but they are few when compared to previous wars, and especially few when compared to actions taken by other governments. The American record is better than others in these matters. Countries you may think have clean hands probably aren't fighting fascism.

It is often said that President Carter never met a dictator he didn't like. His words on these matters don't impress me. -- Randy2063 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he likes George W Bush. Inertia Tensor 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it torture?

I know that someone would think so with like 20 refrences (9 but my point is there is alot), but by definition it is not torutre because it is strictly a psychological technique and causes no more damage to the subject than when a toddler holds his breath as an act of defiance.

Which is precisely why it's a favoured form of torture by evil bastards. The victim complains to the media, the media examine him... Nothing. Not a bruise. But bloody it hell it works like torture. Get over it, it's torture and it's unremittingly evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article is biased on that reason. I put the NNPOV tag up untill it is more evenly covered <--(unsigned comment by User: Teamcoltra 15:13, 16 October 2007)

I moved Is it torture to the end of talk, new items go to the base, that is how wiki works. Inertia Tensor 11:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychological techniques are explicitly included in the definition of torture in both the UN Convention on Torture ("Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,...") and U.S. law 18 USC 2340. Unless you have a reliable source that supports your view, it has no relavance to this article and I am removing the tag.--agr 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many people call it torture. We can't call it torture, because that's controversial, and the controversy is at the heart of the article. We can certainly describe the many sources alleging it as torture, along with those that do not, but we must not choose a side in the article. Thus, I'm reworking the "Waterboarding is a form of torture" sentence. Superm401 - Talk 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made my edit. I spent quite a while on it, and did my best to make it fair, so please don't revert unilaterally. The primary change was modifying the article so it doesn't describe it directly as torture, but rather refers to outside viewpoints, in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. Also, I removed several of the "is torture" references in the intro, since the cited documents did not mention explicitly waterboarding (even if the document outlaws waterboarding, Wikipedia can't do that interpretation; an outside source is needed). There are only 5 sources left for the torture allegation. However, there is only one major source defending (Cheney), so more should probably be added on both sides. Superm401 - Talk 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not a fair revision at all. The sources have multiple definitions of torture, all of which would include this. The fact that there are not sources defending torture might tell you that there is no one that does so... if they existed, they would be there.

As noted, Dick Cheney and others, such as Guliani (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/15/debate-torture/) don't consider it torture. Saying that a quote doesn't exist because it's not yet on Wikipedia makes no sense. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT interpreting or engaging in OR here - It is torture

Torture is an inherent value judgment. It's foolish to say otherwise. Again, per NPOV, "However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion."

Almost everyone would agree stealing is wrong, but it's still a value judgment so theft doesn't say that. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

- everybody on the planet outside the US says it is, and a small group of US Gov. supporters in the US defend it. yet even then they DO NOT SAY IT IS NOT TORTURE, they just refuse to say it IS torture. This is classic spin. History and fact should not be distorted to the comfort of the few.

It is not Wikipedia's job to write history. That's original research. And yes, it may be spin to say (or imply if you prefer) that it's not torture. But spin is a POV too. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All of these treaties define torture to include waterboarding. Would you tell me if Bush invented a new torture and say called it Qweblekak would you say it is not torture because the Geneva conventions do not say Qweblekak is torture. Sorry - I can't stomach your argument about non literal mention of waterboarding. Inertia Tensor 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say waterboarding wasn't torture. I didn't say Geneva didn't outlaw waterboarding. I said Geneva didn't identify waterboarding as torture, which the citation claims it does. The fact that you're talking about what you can stomach clearly shows your emotions are getting ahead of your editing.

Also, you reverted even the non-controversial parts of edit (e.g. fixing references) showing you only glanced at it before unilaterally reverting. Superm401 - Talk 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the new AG is unwilling to state whether he thinks it is or is not torture we can safely assume he doesn't want to tie his hands. Clearly if he says it is torture many people within the Bush administration will protest on account of possible criminal liability, should he state it is not torture he is sure he won't get the job. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

While I have a hard time seeing how this is NOT torture, I think the fact that this is so controversial is evidence of NPOV. The controversy is being discussed everywhere from CNN to Congress. Why not just leave out the word torture (perhaps replacing it with "coercion" for lack of a better word) and let people make up their own minds that it's torture (as I'm sure most people will by the end of the first sentence). I really don't understand the insistence on using the word torture here. To me personally, that insistence makes as much sense as insisting the Abortion article start out "Abortion is the murder of a fetus by. . . ." I can't understand how people don't see abortion as murder, like I can't understand how people don't see this as torture, but those are highly emotional POV words and should probably not appear in Wikipedia in those contexts. And finding thousands of people to back up your POV does not change that it's POV. Not to mention that ten citations immediately following a controversial emotionally-based word just plain looks bad. If you want the assertion regarding it being torture in the article, why not make a separate section ("Controversy" or something like that) rather than following the word "torture" with ten citations? Also note, as someone who came here just to find out exactly what Waterboarding is (and determine for myself if it was in fact "torture"), I kind of wondered about the credibility of the article based on the first phrase and the ten references following the word torture (which gives the feeling of a childish assertion "see, it is too torture cuz all these people agree with me"). I'm sure others feel the same. Sorry that some of this repeated what others have said, but I felt it was relevant to my point. Xsadar 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the ridiculous pile of references is because there have been a few POV editors seeking to water this down, make it politically correct instead of factual. They have steadfastly insisted it is not torture, but drawn a complete blank when asked to back up this assertion. The references make it very clear that there vast evidence for this definition, especially for those who (luckily) didn't endure the previous heated rows in Talk (see archives) - the references are an attempt to make it clear and put an end to the circular rows. Inertia Tensor 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the article, not the references convince me that it's torture. I see no evidence in the references that it's torture, but only a ton of opinions, which will only increase the circular POV aguments, because it's using POV to argue that the word fits (admittedly I didn't read the cited sources, just the descriptions, but the descriptions imply POV, so if any of the sources are valid the description needs to be reworked). Also, torture is a subjective word. Look up torture in Wiktionary. You'll find that it has to meet subjective criteria in every definition: "extreme", "cruel or outrageous", or "undue". While most people, including myself, would argue that it meets those criteria, that's our POV. However, I think it would be perfectly fine to state in the article that certain entities define it as torture. Anyway, I'm not going to stick around to fight it out, because it's not worth my time. I just wanted to inform you that a controversial word followed by ten POV references looks really bad and hurts the credibility of the article. What may actually be helpful if you insisted on keeping the word torture would be scientific (not political) references that describe the ill effects of waterboarding. But a whole slew of POV references just make it look more POV. Xsadar 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more comment, on a lighter note. Even if you keep the word torture and all the same sources, I would recommend putting all ten sources into one long footnote. A list of ten footnotes for one word looks kind of ridiculous. Also, admittedly, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought if there was only one footnote. Just a thought. Xsadar 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of Waterboarding as torture is very very important, right there - as of all it's properties, adjectives, verbs and descriptions - that one word is the most descriptive of it's nature. There is a huge controversy around waterboarding, not because it is almost universally held as torture, but because it is practised in the first place - I would equate this to saying that that though the fact that it was highly controversial that the US Army participated in the My Lai Massacre, it was the fact that they did it that was controversial - not that is was held to be a massacre. Inertia Tensor 07:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why does everybody keep asking questions like "Do you consider waterboarding to be torture?" I agree that most of the controversy seems to be about the practice, but there is also controversy regarding the definition. Xsadar 18:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the US itself has put people on trial for using waterboarding on US soldiers.[9] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make a few points on this matter. First, I don't think the word torture is inherently controversial. If we say "The rack is a torture instrument" or "The Nazis practiced torture," then these are factual statements with well-understood interpretation. Unlike, say, "Stealing is wrong." Second, whether waterboarding is torture has never been controversial until recently, as far as I know. If the article were written ten years ago, and it used the word torture, I think everyone could agree that it would be correct. The only sticking point is this recent stuff from the USA. So my final point is that I don't think the statements I have seen by various politicians constitute a verifiable source for any claim that waterboarding is not torture. They seem to project an attitude that it is not torture, but no one has actually made the claim as far as I know. If we read into their statements a specific claim which they have not made, then we are performing original research. For example, we could easily say how John Yoo's arguments might be applied to waterboarding, but absent verifiable evidence that he did apply his arguments to waterboarding in that way, it's OR.

So my reading of this situation is that, while NPOV requires that we include any notable opinion that waterboarding is not torture, OR and V mean that we can not interpret the weaselly statements of various US politicians to constitute such an opinion. Worldworld 16:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be different had this article been written ten years ago, but I'm not so sure that the answer would be affirmative.

Ten years ago, when most people heard the word "torture" they probably thought about stuff like this. Waterboarding is pretty mild in comparison.

But over the last few years, the things that the enemy does has been more or less compartmentalized by the critics, if not outright excused, and the conversation has become limited almost solely to techniques the U.S. uses. Waterboarding just happens to be at the extreme end of that rather limited list.

So, in comparison to putting womens' underwear on detainees, of course people are more likely to call waterboarding torture.

I do agree that we have to be careful in using opinions from politicians, although I'd be wary of any politicians anywhere in the world. We should also be careful when taking the word from so-called "human rights" organizations when they're so heavily dependent on fundraising. That doesn't leave very much.

-- Randy2063 19:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't really need to guess - several countries made court decisions specifically classifying waterboarding, and other milder forms of water-related interrogation, as torture. There's a lot of good citations in [10].

A lot of the formal, juridicial attitudes toward torture grew out of World War II and abhorrence of the Nazi and Japanese use of torture; so the legal classification of torture is fairly broad, and it is prohibited without reservation by international treaties. Many people seem to have taken a different attitude after 9/11 - the idea is that some of the methods which are classified as torture, are not so bad, and they are acceptable if they help in the war on terror. Whether you agree with these ideas or not, they don't change the fact that waterboarding is a form of torture under established international legal standards.

Calling it torture does not mean that it is necessarily uncivilized, or cruel, or useless, etc. Torture had a defined place within judicial procedure for centuries during Medieval times. However, it just doesn't make sense to me, for us to say that "some consider it torture," when there is literally not one published legal or political document which makes the claim that it is not torture. Worldworld 18:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look closer at those court decisions but I wouldn't put that much stock in its validity. Although I recognize that you were directing me toward its references rather than the PDF itself, I'll say the pompous site it's on doesn't look very promising. (I seriously doubt they truly care about human rights.)

The often cited example of prosecution of Japanese war criminals is disingenuous. The column by Andrew C. McCarthy I linked earlier points out that they did more than just waterboarding there. I'll add here that, when talking about U.S. soldiers, they were uniformed soldiers fighting in a war between two or more "High Contracting Parties" and were therefore clearly due the privileges of the Geneva Conventions.

Where you say the legal classification of torture is fairly broad, McCarthy also points out that the Senate added a signing statement on the limits to the definition of torture when they signed that UN treaty. Perhaps they anticipated that other countries would try to stretch the definition to cover the U.S. in ways that they'd never apply to our enemies.

The U.S. hasn't officially called it torture. McCarthy also said the Congress has had the opportunity to do so, but they didn't. I suppose other countries may have, but few of them have been tested in any meaningful sense. It's a lot like the landmine treaty that they've signed with great fanfare now that they don't need landmines any longer. They're very good at pretending to care about human rights when the cost is virtually zero. It doesn't really mean very much, and it should never be the guideline. It would be like asking Liechtenstein to sign onto the commission on whaling.

I'm not saying it's not torture. What I am saying is that these aren't words we should just throw around. Where you say "calling it torture does not mean that it is necessarily uncivilized, the opposite is also true. Calling it uncivilized doesn't mean that it is torture.

-- Randy2063 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. You bring up several good points. After reading the McCarthy article you linked, I'm definitely inclined to say that some amount of controversy exists. At the very least, the article itself is a verifiable source for the view that it is not torture. Moreover, it "connects the dots" verifiably on some of the bills passed by congress etc. On the other side you have stuff like the paper I linked (which is biased, but definitely presents a lot of evidence and some serious viewpoints). Worldworld 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that it acknowledges some amount of dispute. I'll agree that your paper has more support, and that there are even a few good points.

It's sad to think that this topic requires lawyering, but that's probably what it'll come down to.

-- Randy2063 21:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the current state of the article, I'm now wondering if my comments did more harm then good, or if this would have happened with or without my comments. If this is my fault, I'm sorry. Also, perhaps you're right, Worldworld, that it's best to simply say it's torture, because the vast majority would say that it is, and not just "some" as the article now states, and it's not very verifiable that anyone (of consequence) claims that it's not, regardless of the current controversy. But I don't know. My original complaint though is minor compared to the state of the article now. Much of the information that's been moved to the opinion section definitely belongs in the introduction (where it was before), so I'm going to put it back where it belongs. The current state takes almost everything remotely related to torture out of the introduction so it states little more than the fact that water is poured over the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsadar (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is Waterboarding?

I've been trying to improve the "Technique" section. It has been surprisingly quite difficult to find a good source for a detailed description of waterboarding, as the United States practices it. Most news articles seem to gloss over the details, saying that water is poured over the person causing a gag reflex, or something of the like, but not saying anything much about how much water is used, for how long, whether it is poured into the mouth or the nose, whether the mouth or nose are covered, etc.

In fact, the description in most news articles could accurately be applied to a very mild form of interrogation, in which plastic wrap is put over a suspect's face, and water is poured over the person - but the water slides off the plastic wrap and does not cause gagging or asphyxiation. I had the impression for some time that this was what was happening, and I don't seem to be alone - the Fox News correspondent in the video I've linked asks if the water slid off the cellophane.

Anyway, as far as I know this mild interrogation has never been used (obviously it wouldn't be very effective), and the actual technique is basically what's shown on the Fox News segments (surprisingly, they seem to be pretty accurate here). Unfortunately I have been unable to find a really solid source for this belief (I think I did read an article which said so, but I don't remember where at all). For now I have edited the section to try to give an idea of the ambiguities involved, and to at least include a more concrete description, even if that description can't be solidly sourced at the moment.

As a final note, if I've done anything horrifically impolite by Wikipedia standards, then I apologize and ask for a polite correction - this is basically the first time I've tried to edit an article. Worldworld 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You did fine. I think the section is actually pretty important to understanding the rest of the article, as I've seen differing press accounts, all seemingly talking about waterboarding as a unified phenomenon, when it (according to Fox) is a series of related techniques. Well done.--chaser - t 06:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't you do this edit without deleting the first bit about the director of the CIA - there's no contention there at all as the statement he said is bordering on farcical, and as such stating it illustrates the difference between the perpetrators and almost everyone else? Also I have some concerns about the Fox descriptions - many have said that that these were staged quite mildly with some significant variations from what has been described - it has been said it was toned down to suit the Fox political agenda as was their descriptions - as such the fox component should not be just added as a overwrite of the previous one, but they could co-exist. Fox is not exactly that trustworthy on such subject matter given it's known biases. IMHO both should be there. Inertia Tensor 08:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, and I'm glad it's been restored. I mostly just wasn't sure where to put it, since I couldn't directly relate it to the material I was adding. When I write essays and the like, I remove the content in such a situation - which is a bad way to do things on Wikipedia, but I just didn't think about it. I'll continue trying to find a detailed description of water-boarding from somewhere more trustworthy than Fox - I agree with you that their reporting can be untrustworthy. Worldworld 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have done nothing impolite at all (I may have been to harsh in fact) - welcome to wiki and thank you for helping to edit. I would like to see some sort of melding as described above - you certainly picked a firey article to start with :-) Inertia Tensor 08:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement! I was a little frightened making these edits, but the community here seems very reasonable and helpful. Worldworld 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, in the heat of this article I ignored the most fundamental of Wikipedia tenets, Assume Good Faith. Inertia Tensor 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the dunking go away from this block, it was trashed out a while ago in [[11]] and in edit summaries and I believe it was deemed a red herring, sometimes accidental, and sometimes a very deliberate effort at misinformation by some sectors in the US media. Inertia Tensor 21:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the sources, one of them is the NY Times, the other is the New Yorker. However, the New Yorker piece actually mentions the Times report in the paragraph, so it may be relying on the reporting of the Times. The New Yorker piece then mentions Dr. Allen Keller in connection to water boarding; Dr. Allen Keller's own description, taken from [testimony to congress], is that water is "poured over their face." He also notes that there is a "real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water." In other words, he is clearly not describing any sort of "dunking" but is describing waterboarding in line with other sources.

So it looks like the Times is the odd one out here. Unless more sources can be found, I agree that "dunking" should be elided.

New Fox News definition: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding ? :-) Inertia Tensor 12:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy has a new column out where he mentions this confusion over the technique. There are several ways waterboarding could be done, but the precise method used by the CIA has not been disclosed.

-- Randy2063 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what technique is used. McCarthy states "for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death" and, as he points out in the previous paragraph, "the threat of imminent death" is specifically listed in the definition of torture under US law, 18 USC 2340 1(C). How much clearer can it get?--agr 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that to be so. For one thing, it's probably made pretty clear to the waterboardee that he's not really going to die. If you ever read the Al-Katahni interrogation logs (who was not waterboarded), there were medical personnel present to monitor his health during his interrogation. If the CIA did the same thing then that threat is no longer there. They may feel they're going to die, but I'm sure they know that they won't.

I read "threat of imminent death" to mean holding a gun to someone's head and acting like you're going to kill him.

-- Randy2063 16:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant language in 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..."

That language clearly is talking about what the victim perceives, not the choice words used by the torturer, and every description of waterboarding I've seen says the victim believes death is imminent in the most deep and visceral way. --agr 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the fact that he knows he's not going to die. His body may think otherwise, but he knows better.

I doubt very, very much that the persons performing the torture specifically make it clear to the prisoner that he or she is not going to die, no matter what. It is ludicrous to say that it is a fact that a victim of waterboarding performed by US gov't personnel knows for sure that he won't be killed by the waterboarding, and the burden of proof is on you. --Halloween jack 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your definition points to what may be the real problem: How much actual physical pain is involved?

The WP definition of Pain says, "Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage". I'm sure that's not the definition the CIA's legal department is using, but the direction it points to could be interesting.

Waterboarding is not painful, according to a former CIA officer quoted in this article. And if it's not painful, then you may need to rethink how and why it fits the definition of torture.

-- Randy2063 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but is there any other qualified source that would call his claim anything but patently ridiculous? I mean, really, the claim that waterboarding is not painful? And based on this one source, which is contradicted by so many others, we should rethink how the article is written? Sorry, but regardless of who said it, that's somewhere on the order of claiming that water is crunchy and tastes like beef.--Halloween jack 04:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that we're confusing misery with pain. One is illegal. The other might not be.

This article also says it can be painful if it's not done right. That suggests doing it right means it's not technically painful.

-- Randy2063 14:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding as actual (but controlled) drowning?

Everything I have read on waterboarding before defines waterboarding as simulating drowning by pouring water on the victim over a cloth or other barrier. However, I recently read an article [12] which states that waterboarding as practiced by the US military is a form of actual, but controlled drowning, where the victim is forced to inhale water into the lungs. Does anyone know of any corroborating sources, and if so, should the information be included in this article, or perhaps there's another name for this kind of torture covered under a different article? --Halloween jack 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any reliable sources as to how much water is inhaled. Dr. Allen Keller mentioned in testimony to congress that water is inhaled by the victim. The purpose of the inclination of the board is to prevent the water from being inhaled - but how effective that is, I don't know. Water is forced into the respiratory tract - this is clearly seen in the two videos of waterboarding linked in the article under "technique," in the description by Allen Keller, in the description by Physicians for Human Rights, etc. I'd love to know how much water is actually inhaled - it's another glaring gap in our knowledge of this technique. Worldworld 18:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a case, then, for editing the article to describe waterboarding as a form of controlled drowning, rather than "simulated drowning" or a technique designed to "induce the sensation" of drowning? Regardless of the political biases involved, it seems like a matter of simple logic; torturing someone by beating isn't referred to as "inducing the sensation of being beaten to death."--Halloween jack 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of waterboarding, gathered from reading articles and from basic reasoning about anatomy, is that water is "inhaled" in the sense that it is forced into the upper respiratory tract. The subject is positioned specifically to make this happen; the water is "forced" by gravity, and the only way to prevent it from entering is to exhale. Thus the subject is compelled to quickly expel all the air from the lungs. This is why waterboarding is so much faster and more terrifying than being submerged; within just a few seconds, the subject is out of air and can neither exhale nor inhale, with sinuses and trachea full of water. Whether this is "drowning" depends on your definition; the subject is not dying from lack of oxygen, so in that sense it is not drowning -- at least not immediately. Prolonged application of the technique will fill the lungs with water, and will asphyxiate the subject.

I empathize with your concern. Personally, I hate the term "simulated drowning" because it makes waterboarding sound like something less than drowning -- whereas everything I know about it suggests that it is actually much worse than drowning because it immediately induces, and greatly prolongs, the period of time from when the subject is gagging, in pain, and has no control over the airway, to when the subject passes out. And, of course, it can be repeated indefinitely. I think something like "forced water inhalation" might be more accurate. Again, I speak not from any personal experience or authority on the subject, merely from reasoning based on what I know. -- Ka-Ping Yee 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This NPR story has more on the subject http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15844677 --agr 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Apalled at attempted redefinition of torture

Let me just add for the record that I am appalled that waterboarding, being a mock execution and a very real, prolonged, controlled drowning, has to be referencedly justified to be torture. If this is not torture, then the word has utterly lost its meaning. Falkvinge 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos!

Weasel Words
Doublespeaked Weasel
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Primates
Family:	Hominidae
Subfamily:	Homo Erectus
Genus:	Apologists Tortureus Doublespeakus
Regime
Rogue

This article is great! Well-sourced, NPOV, informative, and reads very well. I came here after reading an article about the US Attorney General nominee, and learned quite a bit. Well done to all involved.

I have removed the "In Popular Culture" section, which stands out like a sore thumb in such an otherwise dandy article. Of course, if any of the regular editors here feel strongly about it, please revert by all means.

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, trivia section... 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

This is a wonderful example of where the Neutral in NPOV breaks down. Only a torture supporting weasel could for a moment contemplate calling waterboarding anything other than Torture. It is plain and simple Torture. To say other is to wander far Neutral and Objective. Do the thought experiment... allow me to strap you to a waterboard and commence... how long before you change your mind about whether it's torture or not? Any euphemistic "has been called torture", "forced interrogation technique" or its "someone's opinion that" is simple evil weaseling of the first order. It's torture, end of story.

Bingo. Apparently they feel that if it doesn't say in law "Ripping nuts off with pliers is torture" literally, then it is not torture. Hmmmm, with that sort of "logic" all a torturer has to do is change the name of the torture. Oh wait, "Enhanced interogation", what's next, enhanced prison (gas chambers)? 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

A Machiavellian who believes any means is justified by the ends, down to and including torture will find NPOV a convenient means to the end. Thus the Wikipedia merely becomes a propaganda broadsheet for the editor with the lowest morals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

--

• "forced information gathering" Is someone smoking crack cocaine? Don't they teach english in schools there - that has to be the most biased, and ridiculous torture of the english langauge, common sense and logic I have seen on Wiki to date - surreal doublespeak. 89.100.48.103 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The article as I read it clearly defined waterboarding as torture in the lead; it was extremely well sourced. I don't like the weaselly version as it now stands. I just wanted to clarify. ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

Could the new arrivals please desist in MASSIVE blanking and provoking of an edit war. Read talk, read the archives and stop engaging in massive unilateral blanking to suit your political masters. This DOES place a lot at the foot of the US, not is NOT BIAS, that is fact, the US is doing it right now, no one knows of any major uses that we can document. It starts by saying what waterboarding is - torture, and how it is done. If it has to mention the US it is only because it is who does it. If you do not want to be called torturers - DO NOT TORTURE. Please take your zero concensus unilateral blanking and edit waring elsewhere and stop filling this artcile with weasels. 89.100.48.103 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Whether waterboarding is torture or not is a point of contention. Many say it is, many others say it is not. So to reflect this disagreement, the lede should reflect both viewpoints as well as the controversy over borderline cases such as waterboarding.

There is no controversy, only American butt covering propaganda. The rest of the world is united. Waterboarding _is_ torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mistake the requirement for external sources and no original research for a requirement to shut your brain down. Torturers are intrinsically evil and will lie, spin, distort, deceive without conscience since by definition, they have none. Thus any external source supporting torture is intrinsically untrustworthy. What such sources _can_ be used for is to objectively demonstrate that the torture supporter is evil and untrustworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

READ THE TALK HISTORY - this has gone on for 2 years here, always arriving back at the torture. No one can produce ANY NOTABLE SOURCE OR PERSON saying it is not torture - no one. Many wish it was not torture, but no one of note says so, no one. It is not biased as there is f-all evidence of anyone of note saying otherwise. None, zero, zip nada. There ar eplenty of politicos who support it in certain cases whether or not it is torture - Guiliani for example, but NO ONE SAY IT IS NOT TORTURE. I have a real problem with new arrivals telling other people to take it to talk when they did not participate themselves in talk before making massive revisions and blanking the entire first 3 paragraphs with NO CONSULTATION WHATSOEVER. The talk makes it incredibly clear, do not do anything major without discussing in talk.89.100.48.103 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no law - whether US statutory law or international law - that states that waterboarding constitutes torture. Since there is no authoritative statement on the status of such grey-area cases as waterboarding, wikipedia rightly should reflect that uncertainty and not claim, dogmatically, that it "is" torture. 220.255.115.209 01:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

READ THE SOURCES. Plain english defines the circumstances that = torture. Stop twisting it, if the administration called it "bosiaoenbdwb" and described it differently, would you say it is not torture because no law says the word "bosiaoenbdwb" is torture, or the exact verbatim description is torture? NONSENSE. Wiki is not meant to gloss over ugly realities, it is meant to be factual, unbiased and objective. That is what this is, well sourced and factual without OR. I'm sorry you wish people didn;t consider it torture, but it is - and no one of note says otherwise. Sometimes the truth hurts. 89.100.48.103 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You say Grey Area = waterboarding, WHAT??? It is plain simple English. For openers it is a mock execution, something absolutely outlawed - they are PROVEN to believe death is imminent, and thus legally a form of torture. 89.100.48.103 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And I should add, my edits do not come down conclusively on one side or the other. Yours do, despite the current controversy over the question. I think it is clear who is pushing POV here. You may hold the opinion that waterboarding is torture very strongly, but absent an authoritative determination by Congress, SCOTUS, or the ICJ, you're only peddling opinion. The administration may of course cite its own legal position on the issue, as advised by the Office of Legal Counsel, that waterboarding doesn't constitute torture. So it is clear that lawyers, and reasonable people, can disagree on the issue. That being the case, it is only fair to reflect both points of view. Your agenda notwithstanding. 220.255.115.209 01:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you can't discuss things without becoming hysterical, perhaps you should do something else? Capitalized words and emphatic exclamation marks don't make your points more convincing. Keep it neutral, thanks. 220.255.115.209 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article arrived at a consensus long before you blew in with your politically motivated biases. It is obvious that you did not make any attempt to seek compromise, did not participate in talk until after you assaulted the article. It says this has generated a blanking of paragraphs, blasted the concept of consensus and provoked a serious edit war. Please desist in your highly disruptive editing and injection of gross bias, unsourced weasel words and general mayhem. Did you seriously expect editors not to revert you for not properly participating and attempting to impose your bias, POV and agenda? Inertia Tensor 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, 220.255.115.209 is engaged in grossly disputive editing, and 3RR warring! 89.100.48.103 01:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Politically motivated? I just said that I'm not coming down on one side or the other of the controversy. In fact, my edit included the statement that waterboarding is regarded as torture by numerous experts. What, exactly, is politically motivated about the fact that there is controversy over whether waterboarding constitutes torture or not? There is no "gross bias". Get a grip. 220.255.115.209 01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Because only one thing can gain by this revisionism - the future legal safety of the torturers - the US administration. The opinion you cited in the edit comment was RETRACTED, and not only that - had you bothered read what the people above wrote, how can the opinion of the torturer even carry any weight. It is worth mentioning below in the article, but it could not possibly carry any weight - can a shop lifter say it is not shop lifting? Or a mugger. A retracted opinion by John Yew et als, on behalf of the torturers themselves. Come on get real. 89.100.48.103 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude. You can't even spell John Yoo properly. I don't think it's really worth my time debating the issue with someone who clearly has a poor grasp of the facts. All I'm trying to do is insert a modicum of NPOV in the article, seeing as there is a present live controversy on the waterboarding question. I have no political stake in this - I'm not even American. Wikipedia should reflect NPOV instead of coming down conclusively on one side or another of a debate, that's all there is to my edit, which did NOT say that w'boarding wasn't torture, or that it is. It merely says that many regard w'boarding to be torture, and makes no categorical claim that it "is" torture absence some authoritative source or law on the issue. NPOV is all I'm saying. Your taking one side, instead of adhering to NPOV, is not very wikipedesque of you. 220.255.115.209 01:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No response? I guess the revelation that I am NOT American put a big hole in your "politically motivated" theory. Wikipedia also says to assume good faith - a courtesy I have not had extended to me. Instead, I was raked over the coals for daring to give the article a NPOV edit. Silly me. I should have known better than assume that my good faith edits would incur anything other than a hysterical reaction (see various examples above). 220.255.115.209 02:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How can I assume good faith when you made a series of massive edits before going near talk, and simply refuse to accept well sourced reality. And you use US english (dude) and turns of phrase so it is a reasonable assumption - but not that relevant. You started an edit war with irresponsible and highly disruptive editing , and are demanding verbatim descriptions of naming of waterboarding to consider it illegal. You are being GROSSLY biased POV. It is a sad an unsavory truth that waterboarding is universally considered torture by those that are notable as sources. The fact that it is a ugly truth that holds some in a very harsh and ugly light does not make it POV, the truth is not always pretty and wiki's role is not to whitewash, gloss over things and take the edge off harsh fact. Stop pushing your POV here. Find me another side - I am not taking one side, I am working as part of the long established consensus that appears to show in the water boarding history. No one has ever shown any evidence of any other side. So how am I POV? YOU ARE 89.100.48.103 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Dude" is a colloquial term used all over the world. Get a grip. I did NOT make any massive edits. Check the edit history - I characterised the sources calling waterboarding 'torture' accurately, and I removed sources (I removed very little _actual text_ in the article) that do NOT state that waterboarding = torture, but were cited as if they were. The reason for this is simple: the same people who think waterboarding isn't torture also rely on the very same statutes - they just give it a different interpretation.

In other words, the statutes themselves are not controlling and certainly _not explicit_ on whether waterboarding meets the definition of 'torture' contained therein. Interpretations differ, hence the controversy. There is nothing POV about accurately describing that "numerous experts" call waterboarding torture. It just doesn't come down on one side of the controversy as you would like. It's called NPOV. And for the last time, waterboarding is not "universally" considered torture. Congress doesn't consider it so, the DOJ doesn't consider it so, and the attorney general doesn't say it is. So you're just badly overstating your case.

I've already found you another side. The OLC memo. The Administration itself. Giuliani, who is "not sure" that it is torture. Tancredo. There are people on both sides of the issue, surprising as that may be for you. The fact that you're coming down conclusively on one side when there's a controversy over it suggests to me that you're violating NPOV. 220.255.115.209 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

RETRACTED opinion, and since when can the criminal's say that it is not a crime carry that much weight? and Julliani did not say it is not torture - plenty of people did. Eventually when pressed, as the ref and the article and the talk above, he simply came around to ignoring the whole torture question and saying he was for it in some cases - he did not address whether or not it was torture - sorry. Unsubstantiated. NO SOURCES AT ALL. 89.100.48.103 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't retracted. Or at least I'm not aware it was. Can you provide a source that says it is "retracted"? And the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel is not a "criminal". You're being blatantly biased now. You also ignore Tancredo, and the OLC. Less of the political rage, please. 220.255.115.209 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's Giuliani on waterboarding: (On whether waterboarding is torture) “Well, I’m not sure it is either. I’m not sure it is either. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately.” (Applause)

So Giuliani clearly thinks that _in certain cases_ ("depending on how its done") waterboarding is not torture. Your characterisation of Giuliani's claim is therefore, inaccurate. As is your claim that waterboarding = torture is "universally" accepted. When it clearly isn't. 220.255.115.209 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish Waterboarding was only an American perversion. But alas, there are people the world over with a need to euphemise away the evil they or their associates have done. God knows there are millions of white South Africans who, like me, should carry deep and everlasting shame. They should carry a terrible anger that this crime was done in our name. Alas, I know most of them are weak and cannot face it and would rather sweep it into the memory hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With a singapore IP... anyway, it is NOT a US monopoly, but the US is by far the most notorious user these days. Burma probably did it to their monks but we do not have a decent source yet, just rumours. Instead of raging about biases on the US, why not CONTRIBUTE other cases that are current and serious. Water boarding is torture, it is exceedingly well sourced, and I have a real problem with someone glossing over the fact and making it a softer gentler article with the injection of weasel words, bogus qualifiers and red herrings. If I want softer-gentler, I will use photoshop, if I want a good, accurate, unbiased encyclopedic article, I will use Wikipedia. 89.100.48.103 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Your 'exceedingly well sourced' does not include anything authoritative in the form of law, or an ICJ opinion, or a determination by Congress. What we have is _your_ gloss on the statutes that "severe mental or physical pain/suffering" includes that of waterboarding. That is not the same thing as what the law actually says. Stick to NPOV. 220.255.115.209 02:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange when the Japanese did it to British soldiers in Singapore it was a full blown war crime. http://robinrowland.com/garret/2005/11/waterboarding-is-war-crime.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Japanese were persecuted for actual war crimes, not cases of waterboarding per se. Unfortunately, the link you cite does not provide sources, nor does he appear to be a professional historian or reliable source. It appears to be a blog actually. So I wouldn't put too much credulity in that. 220.255.115.209 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you read the article you are fighting on - just a suggestion. You might find THIS in it.

• Pincus, Walter, "Waterboarding Historically Controversial; In 1947, the U.S. Called It a War Crime; in 1968, It Reportedly Caused an Investigation" Washington Post, October 5, 2006, pg. A17. viewed October 5, 2006
• Case Defendant: Asano, Yukio from Case Synopses from Judge Advocate's Reviews Yokohama Class B and C War Crimed Trials. Accessed on March 7, 2006

Just a suggestion... Inertia Tensor 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Rampant Political Bias

In the current state of the article, I agree with the United States being mentioned in the initial section as the most recent media coverage. I do not find fault with this and believe it is pertinent information relating to this article. --Pyrex238 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I also find it ridiculous that the entire technique sub heading is composed of only U.S. officials, and media outlets - again this is a bias attempt to associate the United States with ownership - this is what I'm talking about people. --Pyrex238 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. However, this is not caused by bias, but just because these sources are much easier for us to find. Do a google search on "waterboarding," you'll find 50 articles about US waterboarding, not a lot about Cambodian, Argentinian, Spanish, or Japanese waterboarding. I wrote a good part of the current "technique" section. If I had found clear descriptions of the technique from Cambodian, Japanese, etc., sources, I would have used them. I was planning to add some more sources of this sort for more breadth, in fact. Worldworld 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This article contains blatant political biases. The purpose of this article is to define the technique, implementation, purpose, and history. Political biased viewers are intentionally placing the recent United State's allegations directly after the first sentence. That is absolutely absurd editing. The proper location for such material is under the History header, and United States sub section. Wiki viewers must control their biases when editing these articles. --Pyrex238 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The political bias is "spinning" waterboard as something other than the plain unvarnished fact that it is torture. Stop "spinning" it to suit American propaganda objectives and we'll stop correcting it to the plain obvious neutral objective truth. Anything other than the direct simple statement "waterboarding _is_ torture" is political spin and will be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that in the slightest, nor did I remove that statement from the article whatsoever. All I have done is move the United states recent allegations into the proper section, that is all. I feel this is a completely reasonable edit --Pyrex238 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - sorry, your edits are getting caught up in the war between those two IPs and associated reversions. It's best we all back off until they get banned. Inertia Tensor 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, more political bias being thrown back into the article. The world 'charged' is used to describe nothing more than allegations, and speculations. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an unbiased statement of fact to it's viewers. Using the word 'charged' is insinuating that this was a ruling of a court, when it is no more than an allegation. These kinds of words are intentionally used to steer an unbiased viewer into believing something more than speculative allegations had taken place. I have absolutely no problem with the word being used if it were supported by factual evidence, but none is supplied, and it is continually edited to suit a particular bias. Wikipedia is fast becoming a wildly anti-american biased source for information, and this article is further evidence of this. I do not feel that an article regarding technique of torture which was invented 100 years before the inception of the United States should be written in a manner to suggest the United States is solely responsible for it. No matter what your political view is of the U.S., or it's political mindset - one must realize that every bit of information contained in this article in relation to this technique is entirely speculation and none of which has ever been proven, or had a court ruling to verify the allegations. Furthermore, I submit an example as the quote from Jimmy Carter - win which he states "I don't think it, I know it." That's a very strong quote and opinion from an ex US President, yet again there is zero facts to support this, and it is coming from a president which is widely regarded in historical fact as being incredibly anti-military. You will see this is the general temperament of the entire U.S. portion of the article - opinions, media coverage, and speculation. If Wiki were in fact a recognized encyclopedia, all of this information would be consider speculation and removed. Facts and facts alone should be contained in this article. Please, leave the political bias on youtube. --Pyrex238 02:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. If I have inadvertently reverted your changes, I apologise. I only mean to revert the categorical claim made by some editors that waterboarding "is" torture - reverting to Larry Cohen's quite balanced edit, in other words. For NPOV reasons of course. 220.255.115.209 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor - Sorry I deleted your reply to me earlier, I forgot to log in, and when I did I had the wrong section of text selected to undo. I respect your opinion, but you state the U.S. has murdered a million people? That's ridiculous.. seriously, what in the world are you talking about? Pyrex238 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

800,000k approx have been judged by various agencies that have died in Iraq that statistically would not have done so had the US not illegally invaded. Anyway, that debate aside, please keep up your edits, sorry they got caught up in the fighting by those idiots. I have put in for 10RR on one, and someone else has called for temp protection (ban the IPs from it). I think you are on to something by removing all the US centric discourse from the top, but I guess we have to wait for this to pass :-( I didn't separately report that European IP also reverting as I happen to agree, but of course you may as can the admins. Inertia Tensor 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a study published by the british medical journal Lancet, the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives in direct relation to the war reached 655,000 by June 2006. That would put the number of Iraqi deaths over 800,000 today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV on characterising waterboarding as "torture"

I've removed claims that state categorically that waterboarding constitutes "torture". Absent an authoritative law, Congressional determination, or ICJ opinion that waterboarding constitutes torture, retaining NPOV is essential. Hence the compromise edit that states that "many" have held that waterboarding is torture, without coming down on one side or the other of the controversy.

Note that the compromise does NOT state that waterboarding is not torture. It simply avoids stating categorically that it is. This is as NPOV as it gets. That warring editors have attempted to come down conclusively on one side of the controversy, is I think, an indicator that POV is being pushed. 220.255.115.209 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that is explicitly NOT neutral. You are simply reciting verbatim the "spin" being pushed by the US government. ie. You are _not_ neutral, you are explicitly supporting the POV of the people in charge of the perpetrating the torture. If there is a Neutral Point of View it would be to observe that a) Waterboarding is torture, and b) it's the subject of an "own population" propaganda campaign by the US government to soften objections to it and the actions taken by US officials. Now that would be neutral and objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one coming down categorically on one side of the controversy. You are. What makes you think you're not reciting the "spin" being pushed by people who dislike the Bush Administration?

Unlike you, I'm not coming down categorically on one side of the debate. I'm describing the facts as they are: that many view waterboarding as torture (true), and removing the categorical claim that waterboarding "is" torture (disputed). This is as NPOV as it gets. Just because you're upset with the contrary view does not mean that you should pretend that it doesn't exist. 220.255.36.206 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Words have meaning. From M-W, for example: "torture. n. 1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion." Waterboarding is clearly torture. There is no rational question about it whatsoever. "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." is an easily sourced, NPOV statement. You can argue that waterboarding might not be a war crime, or might not be against international law and retain some dignity in the matter, but to use weasel words about something as simple as "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is unacceptable POV. ➪HiDrNick! 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they do. But your assertion that "waterboarding is clearly torture" is just bald assertion. It's not clear to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. It's not clear to Giuliani and Tancredo. It's not clear to the Bush administration. It's not clear to the previous U.S. Attorney General. It's not clear to Judge Mukasey, the current nominee for AG.

What's clear is that a lot of people disagree with what YOU say it's "obvious", but isn't obvious at all to those who disagree. Their argument would be, since waterboarding doesn't result in any permanent physical injury, it clearly doesn't count as "severe physical pain". So it isn't torture. It's a plausible argument. So they too could assert that it's "clear" that waterboarding isn't torture. It doesn't make them right. Just as it doesn't make YOU right when you assert the contrary.

Try sticking to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You all should immediately understand as well that this article isn't Waterboarding in the United States, its Waterboarding, globally. This article should never, full stop, say waterboarding is or isn't torture, because there will never be such an answer. We can only report what reliable sources say. Our own views or perceptions aren't allowed here--that is NPOV. • Lawrence Cohen 05:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I concur. The revert-warring wasn't an edit-war between "isn't" and "is". It was between "many say waterboarding is torture" and "waterboarding is torture". That the latter claim is the categorical one coming down - conclusively - on one side of the controversy, suggests that those making it are pushing POV. 220.255.36.206 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

Per request on WP:RPP, the article has been fully protected for a few days. From the contributions, it's not simple anon vandalism but a full-on content dispute. Folks - please try to resolve the matter here first before warring about the article - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I apparently triggered World War 3 by dropping that touch of NPOV in the lead... • Lawrence Cohen 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just utter mayhem and quite obviously a content dispute that's spiralled way out of control - Alison ^❤ 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As nearly all the vandal type stuff was anonymous editors, would it help to semi protect for a while after full protection drops off? • Lawrence Cohen 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The prot is only for three days. If things go well, we can unprot in a while. I just want the pandemonium to stop - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Could these be TOR/open proxies? • Lawrence Cohen 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I just checked a few here - Alison ^❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is/Is not torture

As we obviously are not allowed to decide this per NPOV and OR, this is the current version Alison locked the article on. I found this today, and saw the state of things, and offered up this as lead sentences to try to compromise:

Waterboarding is a form of forced information gathering. It has been called torture by numerous experts. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Now, the seven (!) sources listed are all people that could be safely and extremely uncontroversially called "experts" on the matter, ranging from legal experts, lawyers, Central Intellegience Agency staff, and ex-United States Presidents. I think it's pretty unequivocal and NPOV that waterboarding has "been called torture by numerous experts." Does anyone disagree? Why, based on Wikipedia polices. Please explain. Might as well start at the top of the article to fix this insanely useless edit war. • Lawrence Cohen 05:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't disagree at all. I've been reverting to your NPOV version. Other editors prefer to push POV by insisting on the view that waterboarding "is" torture - a view not shared by the DOJ OLC, the administration, or even Judge Mukasey - the current nominee for Attorney General. 220.255.36.206 05:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My version neither endorses nor condemns anything. Keep in mind that the current US Justice Department and Bush Administration are anything but neutral sources on this, given that they are at criminal risk if its decided in the US that it is torture. Their views can be noted but are not definitive for Wikipedia of anything. • Lawrence Cohen 05:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the resolution of the "is torture" conflict, I do have a dispute with your current wording, which I hope you will understand. The first sentence is "Waterboarding is a form of forced information gathering." But that is not really a definition of waterboarding; it is a classification of it, and not one that everyone would agree with, since waterboarding can be used for many purposes. Waterboarding is a specific physical procedure -- the actual definition is from the third sentence onwards ("Waterboarding consists of immobilizing..."). I suggest that the opening sentence should contain or directly lead into the definition of the act itself. Does this make sense? Ka-Ping Yee 12:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point on the semantics of the wording and style. We can ask for that to be changed, I can't imagine it being contentious at all. It's on the level of fixing grammatical errors. • Lawrence Cohen 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

How about

• Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning used to extract information. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Just a suggestion. Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Let me ask for this edit to be installed, it meets NPOV perfectly that I can see, and is completely verifiable, so no valid objections under policy can exist. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Can the opening line in this article to be changed to Nescio's suggestion?

Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning used to extract information. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Thanks. 1-7 sources are the existing ones already in place. • Lawrence Cohen 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 15:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I also support the above wording, specifically "controlled drowning" and "experts have described...as torture", and am satisfied to see it left this way. (My preference would be to leave out "used to extract information" because it is not, I believe, completely verifiable that this has always been its primary or only purpose, and it is less controversial to say what the practice is than what it is for.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for is/is not

I'm looking for help from anyone in answering these two questions:

(Q1) If there are numerous sources that say "X is true" but no one can find sources that say "X is false", is it fair for a Wikipedia article to simply state "X is true"?

(Q2) Has anyone found any sources that say "waterboarding is not torture"?

Ka-Ping Yee 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and don't really feel qualified to answer (Q1). However, I will try to answer (Q2), to the best of my ability.

The sources that I have been able to find for explicit claims that waterboarding is not torture have been thin on the ground. So far I have found three. One, John Yoo's memo argued that certain enhanced interrogation practices do not constitute torture. We know from press coverage that waterboarding was one of these techniques. The memo was later retracted, but represents apparently a plausible legal opinion. Two, the British foreign office said through a spokesperson that "Whether the conduct described [waterboarding] constitutes torture ... would depend on all the circumstances of the case," [13]. Three, Andrew McCarthy argues in the National Review Online that it is not torture [14].

I think the question of whether it is appropriate from an NPOV standpoint to call it torture or not, basically hinges on the question of whose opinion counts as notable in this case. The word "torture" is not a completely subjective one, and there are several international standards on the matter of what is and what is not torture. It seems to me that if the Burmese authorities stated that waterboarding is not torture, people probably wouldn't want to edit the article; but when US authorities state that it is not torture, there is a sense that their opinion is germane to the issue.

My own preferred solution would be to make a new section, or perhaps expand on the legal section, in order to lay out the viewpoints for and against classification of waterboarding as torture. This would mean that we could actually explain those seven footnotes, as well as possibly adding other viewpoints on the issue. And it would give us a place for the minority opinion that it is not torture, and to explain the reasoning behind that. Worldworld 16:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am doubtful that the first two examples you mention can be considered reliable sources for this point of view, though the third is more plausible. A memo that has been repudiated and retracted doesn't stand as a reliable source; and the British foreign office has only said it "would depend on all the circumstances," not that it was not torture (the headline is an exaggeration). Only McCarthy's column explicitly states "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

Do you think it would be correct to say the following?

The overwhelming majority of expert opinions hold that waterboarding is torture [multiple references]. However, prominent figures in the United States government, including George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, have specifically refused to give an opinion on whether waterboarding is torture in response to direct questioning, and the British Foreign Office has stated that it "would depend on all the circumstances" [15]. Andrew McCarthy wrote "I don't believe it qualifies [as torture]" though it does qualify as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment "in almost all instances" [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.36.206 (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ka-Ping Yee 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. The relevant conclusions of the memo have not been repudiated. See, e.g., fn. 8 in this follow-up OLC memo:

"While we have identified various disagreements with the August 2002 Memorandum, we have reviewed this Office's prior opinions addressing issues involving treatment of detainees and do not believe that any of their conclusions would be different under the standards set forth in this memorandum."

The memos' conclusion addressing the treatment of detainees stands. 220.255.36.206 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A description of this follow-up would be a fine addition to such a paragraph. The whole paragraph would go in the "Legality" section. (That section probably also needs some mention of the McCain act.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness

The effectiveness "discussion" isn't neutral. It only gives the point of view that waterboarding is not effective, although some experts will say that it is. I realize such claims were included earlier in the article, but so were the doubts of its effectiveness. I propose that the "effectiveness" section either be removed for redundancy's sake, or be expanded to include viewpoints that differ from "it doesn't work." Otherwise, this page leaves the impression that "waterboarding isn't effective" is pretty much universally agreed upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.32 (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoints can only be included if they come from notable expert sources, and are in a reliable source. Do you have some? • Lawrence Cohen 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable sources within the main page itself (such as the officer present at the interrogation of KSM), as I had pointed out above. I'll look around and see if I can find some more. But my redundancy point remains...the claims doubting its effectiveness are mostly repeats of statements earlier in the article (Bob Baer, Human Rights Watch quotes).

I'd say the last paragraph of the "Technique" section belongs in the "Effectiveness" section. It appears to be the other side of the effectiveness discussion that you were looking for. Ka-Ping Yee 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Are poorly sourced news stories valid citations?

In the <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2368990.ece">Independent news article</a>, the brief story makes claims and cites unnamed legal experts and an unnamed CIA officer (who is contradicted by CIA officers who are named elsewhere in the wiki article). If "legal experts" aren't named nor their qualifications given, can we really rely on their assumed "expertise", even if the unknown experts were cited in an otherwise reliable newspaper? I mean, if a DUI lawyer says, "I think waterboarding is very effective," does this mean he can be cited as a "legal expert"? If I sound like I'm nit-picking, I'm not trying to. But verifiability is key, and Independent reporter Andrew Gumbel is normally tasked to covering Hollywood stories, not political / military / legal issues. I would like to see a better source for this story's claims, is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

wikify "torture"

{{editprotected}}

I suggest wikifying the word "torture" in the first section so that readers can easily compare the description of waterboarding with the actual definition in the torture article. --Risacher 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Support. • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done - pretty uncontroversial - Alison ^❤ 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Alleged war criminals

{{Editprotected}} Any endorsements for changing this passage:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are war criminals under the Geneva Convention, and whom are often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[10]

To:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are allgeded war criminals under the Geneva Convention, and whom are often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[10]

Change is in bold, addition of "alleged". These men have not been convicted in any internationally recognized court of law that is authorized to name them as war criminals. This is per WP:BLP. • Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be fixed but I don't agree with your solution because it doesn't differentiate between those who were waterboarded, and those who were simply "extrajudicial" prisoners. It makes it seem as though they waterboarded every jihadi.

I don't think the difference had anything to do with whether or not they were alleged to have committed war crimes. It would be good if we could find the exact number who were waterboarded.

You're wrong to use scare quotes on "detainees." Even if the GCs were applicable to Afghanistan, the 4thGC refers to this as detainment.

-- Randy2063 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only claim supported by the cited article is that waterboarding was among the techniques used on detainees. I think we should remove the "war criminals" bit entirely, unless someone can come up with a source. Per Randy2063's point above, I think we should say that it was authorized to be used on some detainees - it does seem to have been applied selectively. Worldworld 16:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Endorse change. The addition is "alleged" is clearly an improvement. ➪HiDrNick! 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the dispute over "detainees" vs. "some detainees" vs. (in quotes) "'detainees'" can be avoided, since the sentence already describes them (accurately enough, I believe) as "extrajudicial prisoners." Hence I propose:

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are alleged to be terrorists.[10]

The change is to remove the "detainees... war on terror" bit and replace "war criminals" with "alleged to be terrorists." Ka-Ping Yee 18:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still not accurate. There are many people who still like to call the GTMO detainees "extra-judicial prisoners." That's a much bigger set than just the CIA detainees, and there are probably a lot of naive readers who assume they were waterboarding detainees at GTMO.

How about "CIA detainees"? It's a more limited number, and closer to the truth.

-- Randy2063 18:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The CIA detainees phrase is probably most accurate overall. • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States who are held by the CIA on suspicion of terrorism. Good? Ka-Ping Yee 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

 Not done - I'm declining the above edit request as you guys are obviously not at consensus at this time. Good progress is being made below, though - Alison ^❤ 02:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

United States-centric

The overall tone and writing on this article is very specific to the United States. While we're a big nation, we're only one, and waterboarding is hardly unique to us. A pretty compelling section on the US and waterboarding can certainly be built, but we need to generalize and internationalize the article heavily. The lead is basically, "Waterboarding is this. The United States... The United States... The United States... The United States... something else, The United States... something else." That is a bit of undue weight. Just a thought. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the big controversy at the moment is in the U.S. If you know of sourced info on current use in other countries, by all means let us know.--agr 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article isn't US-centric because of the authors, but because of the information that is available. If anybody can add something from another nation, please do, but this article may have to stay US-centric with the current political situation. Randvek 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe tone it down on the lead, and built it out below in the US section, a bit? • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed lede

I would like to propose a new intro paragraph for this article that avoids the "waterboarding is X" construction and I think covers the various views in an NPOV way, without giving undue weight to the self-serving Bush position. I have not added refs to the last two sentences, pending some consensus on language. (refs make things hard to edit. There are plenty, including the last few days coverage by the NY Times).

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. However there have been persistent reports in the media that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency uses waterboarding on detainees (the New York Times reports at least three instances around 2003) and that the George W. Bush administration has attempted to justify its continued use in classified legal opinions written by the Department of Justice that allegedly claim waterboarding isn't torture. The administration has refused on numerous occasions to say whether it uses waterboarding or whether it considers waterboarding to be torture.

--agr 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's POV to say its opponents "described" it as torture, while its advocates "allegedly claim" it isn't.

Why not swap them? The opponents "allegedly claim" it's torture, and the supporters "describe" it as not torture.

-- Randy2063 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "allegedly claim" is technically correct, since the memos are classified, and our only knowledge of their contents is from news reports. Worldworld 17:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but the sentence talks about "persistent reports," so I'm comfortable with just striking "allegedly" out.--agr 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a very good job summarizing the main points consistently with NPOV. Worldworld 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the part starting with "However" belongs in the section about contemporary use by the United States. It's not part of the definition of waterboarding, so I don't see why it should go in the lede. It seems to me that statements about use should go in "Contemporary use" and statements about legality (see my proposed paragraph above under "Sources for is/is not") should go in "Legality". Ka-Ping Yee 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're adding a section about contemporary use, you might want to include the use of waterboarding in military training - such as POW resistance training or Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training in the US military. This might go some way towards explaining why there is a controversy and why some people view waterboarding as a borderline case, given its apparently routine use in military training. 220.255.36.206 19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the sections I mentioned already exist in the article. Ka-Ping Yee 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. If you're adding to the section, rather. 220.255.36.206 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Lead section "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Of course, each item mentioned shoud be expanded upon elsewhere, but the basics should all be in the lead.--agr 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you're right. I'll soften my position a little about what should go in the lead. I'm still afraid that jumping directly into U.S.-specific opinions in the first paragraph may be too controversial, though. Half of the first paragraph seems like too much to spend on it. But perhaps we can find a good compromise? What do you think of (a) inserting a paragraph break after "Numerous experts" sentence and/or (b) reducing the detail to something like There is ongoing controversy about the George W. Bush administration's refusal to declare that waterboarding is torture. with more detail later? Ka-Ping Yee 22:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To narrow the debate a little, Can we all agree that the beginning of the article should read as follows below (and then it can get into the torture categorization question). I, myself think this is the most NPOV way to introduce the subject (nice job agr!). Remember 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage.

If you have a problem with the first two sentences of the article starting as stated directly above state so below and your reason for objection.

I prefer Nescio's wording: Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning consisting of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water. This is mainly for the reason that (a) real water actually floods the subject's breathing passages; and (b) the procedure actually can drown the subject. I believe it would be more accurate to avoid the suggestion that the subject merely experiences a "sensation" rather than an actual physical event. Ka-Ping Yee 20:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify the above, I only mean to suggest a change to the first sentence. The rest is fine.) Ka-Ping Yee 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have whttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding&action=edit&section=41

Editing Talk:Waterboarding (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaith Ka-Ping's suggested Nescio intro is that "controlled drowning" is a term that I could not find defined anywhere authoritative so to say that "Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning" becomes problematic. This is not to say controlled drowning is or isn't a widely accepted term, I just can find anything authoritative that defines this term. Remember 20:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controlled drowning" is a term used by an expert in this technique, in this article. It is a superior term to "simulated drowning" in that the prisoner's lungs do in fact fill with water. Badagnani 20:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see his use of the term in the article you cited. Could you please point it out to me. I actually think the term "controlled drowning" is probably the most descriptive term, but I want to make sure we are not making up this term.Remember 22:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, he says "controlled death" in the source. Badagnani 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually he does say "controlled drowning" in the original source, here. Badagnani 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree that "Controlled drowning" is the way to go, seeing as how the lungs have water in them, and it's a term used by experts. User:Zach 2, November 2007 4:58 EDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.81.163 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The above lead doesn't provide the context under which waterboarding might occur, and as others have somewhat stated "a form of controlled drowning"? Are there other forms of controlled drowning? Drowning is defined as DEATH by suffocation/asphyxiation....Since waterboarding doesn't induce death, I would suggest that it is not a form of drowning. Why doesn't the article open with "Waterboarding is a technique applied to prisoners to make them believe they are drowning. The fear of drowning is exploited by the prisoners' captors in order to extract information from, punish, weaken/break the spirit of, or reeducate the prisoner. The effectiveness and legality of Waterboarding are subject to debate." Jotorious 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, they really are drowning. If the head is placed under a faucet or hose, as is sometimes done, and the person does not talk. The person may actually die. Badagnani 22:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you live, were you drowned or weren't you? Do you say they tried to drowned you? or do you say they drowned you but you lived? I'm not sure. The wikipedia article drowning defines drowning as death. Is getting water in your lungs and not being able to breath technically drowning ? I think that when people say they are drowning it is equivalent to saying they are dying, but I'm not sure it's consistent to describe waterboarding as controlled drowning, because in my interpretation, that is like saying it is controlled dying, which I think it clearly is not. How about Waterboarding is the controlled introduction of water into the lungs to cause inability to breath and the fear of drowning. .Jotorious 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem here -- English does not have a separate word for the process of drowning, as opposed to drowning (with death implied). Yet "drowning" is the best word I can think of to concisely describe the concept. Would the wording "controlled partial drowning" or "controlled near-drowning" be an acceptable compromise? Ka-Ping Yee 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The process is "drowning" but "near-drowning" seems accurate. Nonetheless, I would be very surprised if no prisoner ever died from undergoing this procedure, either in the past or present. Badagnani 03:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I share your sense that people are likely to have died from this procedure. I would be satisfied with "controlled drowning" or "controlled near-drowning" or a construction around the phrase "process of drowning". Another possibility is "controlled suffocation", since the dictionary definition of suffocation includes both "killing" and "impeding respiration" among other meanings. Ka-Ping Yee 04:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

May I again offer a suggestion

• People have been saved from death by drowning. Most notorious was the Titanic
• Drowning itself does not mean being dead, it refers to an experience that if not terminated will result in death.
• The nuance needed is of course the notion that one may be drowning but can be saved from dying, hence the controlled drowning

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is well reasoned and I support this wording. Badagnani 18:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What other sections do people have an issue with?

As much of the conflict swirled around the lead section, what other issues do people have? Maybe each person post a concise summary, and we can then pick apart problems. • Lawrence Cohen 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of waterboarding all together, I'm concerned with the second paragraph of the section "Contemporary use" subsection "United States - War on Terror" which says

...the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, however this applies solely to United States citizens, as the U.S. Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens.

My lay understanding is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment is currently interpreted quite literally, and that constitutional protections are apply to all persons within the jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, though I can't right now find a specific case citation regarding equal protection application to legal non-citizen aliens with respect to criminal proceedings.

However, consider the findings of Rasul v. Bush, in which the courts found "that the right to habeas corpus is not dependent on citizenship status" (and further ruled that the detention center at the Guantanamo Bay naval base is to be considered within the courts jurisdiction). I would think that, without compelling evidence (i.e., citations otherwise) otherwise, if habeas rights are an entitlement to non-citizens within the jurisdiction (even at Guantanamo, as the court ruled) that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment is also applicable within that jurisdiction.

I think that sentence needs to go. It seems incorrect and the citizenship issue seems irrelevant to that part of the discussion.

-- Robbins 00:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the editor who wrote that must have meant it doesn't apply outside U.S. jurisdiction. (It might be Johnson v. Eisentrager they're thinking of.)

As you said about GTMO, the court ruled it does apply there -- although that's irrelevant since they didn't waterboard anyone at GTMO.

-- Randy2063 01:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I concede your assertion that waterboarding didn't occur at GTMO (I'm not convinced it's true, I only mean not to debate that). I only mention GTMO by way of the court ruling that habeas applies within all jurisdictions regardless of citizenship, and if habeas applies then so to it would logically follow that the cruel and unusual prohibition would also apply to all jurisdictions (based on equal protection). The sentence either needs clarification that it "...may not apply to non-citizens held extra-jurisdictionally" - which only opens more legal problems as Johnson v. Eisentrager was based partly on the Army's concession that the German prisoners had protections under the Geneva Conventions (which also bars Torture) - or, to remove the last part regarding citizenship all together. I suggest the latter options is most appropriate as the citizenship element is not relevant to that paragraph (I concede it may be relevant elsewhere, but just not in that specific paragraph).

-- Robbins 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the link referenced by that article, and I think the jurisdiction doesn't matter. The executive order was not talking about the fact that the Constitution doesn't apply outside the U.S. It was only using it as a guide to define the limits to what "cruel and unusual" means.

I'd delete the text "however this applies solely to United States citizens, as the U.S. Constitution does not protect the rights of non-citizens."

-- Randy2063 03:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree. I had just signed in to delete it but noticed that the page is protected. It's OR analysis on the bounds of the EO anyway even if it's correct (dubious). Ripe 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another major problem with this article is that it leaves to the reader's imagination the number of fascists who've been waterboarded by the CIA.

I thought it was just two dozen. Apparently, the answer is three.

-- Randy2063 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Three" is the number that has been admitted to. Evidence shows that intelligence organizations often (usually?) do not disclose the totality of their activities. It's a very endearing quality that you are so trusting, though. Badagnani 18:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire controversy is based upon leaks exactly like the one acknowledging only three (in the Bush admin, anyway).

Yes, we could imagine that there are many more. But by that same type of interesting sensibility, we must then assume that virtually every intelligence agency in the world uses waterboarding.

-- Randy2063 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Descriptive article

This recent article about waterboarding, which outlines its teaching in the U.S. and its practice and effects in some detail, would add greatly to this article. It also describes the experience of Henri Alleg, one of the most prominent examples of someone to have been subjected to this technique, speaking about his experience. I don't believe Alleg is mentioned at all in the article, but he should be. Badagnani 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to have input about this point. Badagnani 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a quotation from Alleg would be a fine addition to this article. Ka-Ping Yee 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. If the quote is too long perhaps it could go in a section listing personal accounts of being waterboarded. There seem to be few who have written about this in detail other than Alleg and Nance. Badagnani 18:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Effectiveness" section

The section on effectiveness is US-centric, modern-centric, and generic to torture in the large, not just waterboarding; as such, I'd recommend it be deleted and replaced by a single link earlier in the discussion. I'm not seeing a good link on torture or its sub-articles, but I highly doubt that the waterboarding article is the place to talk about the effectiveness of torture in interrogations. Bhudson 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Degrees of torture

The question is whether torture is "binary", i.e. whether a given action IS or IS NOT torture. This makes it simple, both ethically and politically. The people of the world can brand an action as "torture" or declare that it is "not torture". These will be our only two choices.

A simple choice gives us simple options. A given country either calls the action torture and bans it, or denies that it is torture and permits it. A murky middle ground can also emerge in which the country refuses to say whether an action (like waterboarding) is "torture" or not. This would let them continue to uphold the prohibition against "torture" while not making any definitive statement one way or the other on certain specific actions.

A more complex analysis is also possible. The people of the world can assign "levels of severity" to various uncomfortable, distressing, painful or mutilating actions. Each country might even have its own definition of what is permitted. In several African countries, the private parts of young girls are routinely mutilated but there is hardly any worldwide condemnation of this action as "torture". (Oddly enough, male circumcision has attracted much criticism.) In pre-war Iraq, the government removing the earlobes of prisoners (as a coercive measure); the U.S. considers this "torture" and has never condoned it.

The question of waterboarding then becomes - rather then whether it is simply torture or not - a question of whether it is too severe a practice.

The United States frequently presents itself as a model of civilized democracy and is often considered a leader in the field of human rights. Thus many people look to the U.S. as an arbiter and pacesetter for the ethical question of prisoner abuse. Perhaps that is why world attention has been focused on the issue of post-war Iraq and the U.S. treatment of prisoners.

What makes this article so difficult to write is that there is no universal standard of human rights which all countries (and all advocates and partisan groups) can agree on. We could make our writing task easier if we as writers would each give up any idea of making the article reflect our own views. Instead, we might agree to have the article describe all the major views which are "out there".

Here is a possible outline on the "torture" question regarding waterboarding:

1. That it is torture, and that no country should ever do it
2. That it is not torture, and that any country may do it
3. That it doesn't matter whether it is torture or not, but that it is a severely scary and "life-changing" action which each country must decide on a case-by-case basis choose whether it is justified
4. Other prominent views

Which other Wikipedia writers feel that this would be a good outline, and that we could remove the "protection" from the article? --Uncle Ed 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately disagree on this being a binary choice in any level if you use the United States as a barometer, specifically because the United States is not a good arbiter of anything on this matter. Our presentation is required to be somewhat as ambiguous as the question really is, unless a truly global body like the United Nations comes down definitively on the matter. Specific to the United States, we're making a mess of this question of is/isn't torture. We prosecuted war criminals after World War II for waterboarding as a method of torture. We state repeatedly that we do not torture people. Hundreds of experts have stated that waterboarding is torture (this, we will state as fact because we are required to--NPOV and verfiability are non-negotiable, so that passage with seven current sources, with that wording, isn't leaving). However, we also have confirmed and verified government reports that Americans have used waterboarding against alleged criminals in the Bush administrations war on terror. Therefore, we have a verified standard that (specific to the United States):

1. Waterboarding was perceived as torture, going back to pre-20th century times (sourced fact).
2. Waterboarding is definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts (sourced fact).
3. Waterboarding is historically prosecuted by the United States as a crime and some other countries, and as torture (sourced fact).
4. Someone in the current United States government authorized the use of waterboarding, definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts, on alleged criminals held in the war on terror (sourced fact).
5. The current (and potential, Mukassey) principals of the United States government state repeatedly that waterboarding is not torture (sourced fact).
6. Numerous experts have stated that if the US Government considered waterboarding torture, criminal prosecutions could theoretically go all the way to the White House for its use (sourced fact).

This is a complete and utter mess from the U.S. perspective and therefore makes the U.S. a horrid barometer for this. Also, we won't use the United States' take as a barometer for this or guide to the article, as waterboarding is an ancient practice used globally. Our country (assuming you're American) will just have the biggest sub-section I'm sure. The only things I can see us definitely being allowed per NPOV to say in this article as so called "TRUE FACTS" over the "is/isn't" torture aspect:

1. Waterboarding was perceived as torture, going back to pre-20th century times (sourced fact).
2. Waterboarding is definitively considered torture by modern international bodies, and hundreds of living experts (sourced fact).
3. Waterboarding is historically prosecuted by the United States as a crime and some other countries, and as torture (sourced fact).
4. Some modern countries (list, facts, sources, etc.) currently contest whether waterboarding is torture, or a crime.

We can't paint this is any other way that I can perceive. Unfortunately, a lot of your other suggestions sound like we would imply or generate orginal research, unless I'm misreading this. We won't have any of that unfortunately. • Lawrence Cohen 14:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think waterboarding three jihadis after 9/11 makes the U.S. into some monster.

I recognize the difficulties in using the U.S. as a barometer, but it's far better than the UN which is not capable of using the word "genocide" until it no longer matters. The hollowness of the UN's talk on human rights is legendary, and they shouldn't be the arbiter here.

The waterboarder war criminals of WWII were not convicted solely on the basis of waterboarding. And there's a difference in that uniformed soldiers are protected by the 3rdGC. Besides that, as it's been said that the procedure makes the difference in danger and pain, those who'd say it's not torture if done properly will still agree that it is torture when it's done wrong.

Mukassey didn't say it's not torture. He only said he wasn't privy to the details, and so he couldn't provide a legal opinion.

The reason the U.S. will have the biggest subsection here is only because we're the only ones whose commitment to this fight really matters. Other countries can quietly send the worst of their fascists to us while pretending to suffer the vapors when the word "rendition" is spoken aloud. And if you doubt that, please note that your comment included the phrase, "Bush administrations war on terror." Many in the rest of the world think they're merely spectators in the cheap seats with whistles and placards.

The rest are terrorists whose use of torture goes far beyond the scale of waterboarding. If you've looked all 12 pages of torture techniques, you might have noticed that waterboarding wasn't among them.

All we can do here is put out the facts as we know them. The CIA's lawyers think they found a loophole in the precise definition of pain. The critics think pain is more than just the clinical definition. If you think the CIA's lawyers are some nefarous lot, keep in mind that they've cancelled other projects that could have yielded important results in the war.

-- Randy2063 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Trust me when I say 100% that the CIA, or our government does what it needs to. I personally don't always like it, but war is war. I broke my rose-colored glasses decades ago. I'm simply saying that we can't take a stand either way, as much as we, and myself want to. I almost think that the US section, when properly built up (without hundreds of edit war edits in day...!) could probably have material for a Featured Section, if we had such a thing. Realistically, the only answer we're allowed to offer is boiled down to "Lots of experts say that waterboarding is torture, and has been considered torture for a very, very long time, but people in various governments today contest this belief to some degree," on that note. • Lawrence Cohen 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 6. "Numerous experts have stated that if the US Government considered waterboarding torture, criminal prosecutions could theoretically go all the way to the White House for its use (sourced fact)."

Is this actually true? As I understand it, the Detainee Treatment Act (2005) as amended by the Military Commissions Act (2006) provides immunity for "United States Government personnel engaged in authorized interrogations" and further provides that immunity "shall apply with respect to any criminal prosecution that relates to the detention and interrogation of aliens described in [the DTA]" - meaning that DOJ/OLC counsel who worked on legal advice pertaining to detainee treatment - or any administration official for that matter - are covered from criminal liability by statute.

Of course, US personnel may be prosecuted by other states. But it wouldn't hinge on the United States' retroactive "admission" one way or another. 220.255.36.206 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the classification of waterboarding as "torture" has legal implications similar to those of classifying forced migration or mass murder as "genocide". Treaties as well as national law come into play.

For example:

1. US Army Sergeant Stone waterboarded Prisoner X
2. Waterboarding is torture
3. Torture is illegal
4. Therefore, Sergeant Stone broke the law (1, 2, 3)
5. American soldiers who break the law must be courtmartialed and punished.
6. Therefore, Sergeant Stoe must be courtmartialed and punished. (4, 5)

We can draw up similar proofs for civilian officials who order waterboarding. And there are parallels for countries and genocide.

The key point here is that the main conclusion is that someone (or some country) should be condemned and punished.

Governments which want to coerce prisoners, or which want to displace or kill unwanted populations, generally do NOT want to concede that these actions should be condemned. So they resist classification of these actions in any ethical or legal category which merits condemnation.

Perhaps then our strategy as Wikipedia article co-authors is to describe the views of various parties (A) who classify waterboarding etc. as "bad" and "worthy of punishment", as well as (B) who fail to agree with this classification or even dispute it actively. --Uncle Ed 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Equivocation on something that has been used and described as torture for hundreds of years does not make any sense. There is nothing wrong, however, with stating that some current politicians, from a single party in a single country want to mince words and make an "end run" around international law, but using their fringe redefinition as "one of many views" on the subject is like presenting the "young earth" theory (that the Earth is just about 6K years old) as just "one of many competing theories." We don't do that. Badagnani 18:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with any suggestion that Wikipedia play any sort of advocacy role here. It (and the idea, to be honest) is unacceptable. The article can't come down as pro/con waterboarding, or pro/con the people who did or didn't do it. Any attempts to make the article otherwise would be on the level of vandalism. • Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no "advocacy role" proposed. What is objected to is the adoption of highly unusual, euphemistic terminology employed by a single administration, of a single political party, of a single nation, against the consensus that this hundreds-of-years-old technique is a form of torture. As stated earlier, there is no problem with mentioning this anomalous argument in context of the section about the technique's current use by U.S. personnel or foreign personnel doing so as U.S. proxies. Badagnani 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Nance article

Malcolm Nance, the U.S.'s chief officer in charge of teaching waterboarding, has just stated that waterboarding is absolutely a form of torture. Please read this article, in which his tesimony is summarized, before commenting further about your opinions on the matter, thanks. Badagnani 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The original article is here. Badagnani 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Nance has supervised waterboarding exercises on US personnel while training them to resist interrogation.

2. Does this mean that the US military tortures its own soldiers?

3. Does this mean that Nance is complicit in torturing his trainees?

4. That is a rather strange admission to make. 220.255.36.206 18:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article straight through? He states that he himself has been waterboarded and that it is bad enough even though he (and his trainees) know what is coming. For a prisoner who may never have undergone this procedure, it causes extremely severe physical and mental stress, and is torture.

This is the passage in question:

“ The carnival-like he-said, she-said of the legality of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques has become a form of doublespeak worthy of Catch-22. Having been subjected to them all, I know these techniques, if in fact they are actually being used, are not dangerous when applied in training for short periods. However, when performed with even moderate intensity over an extended time on an unsuspecting prisoner – it is torture, without doubt. Couple that with waterboarding and the entire medley not only “shock the conscience” as the statute forbids -it would terrify you. Most people can not stand to watch a high intensity kinetic interrogation. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure watching or causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you to question the meaning of what it is to be an American. ”

Source: [17]

Subjecting U.S. personnel to tear gas, pepper spray, Tasers, or waterboarding is a form of training and, if I read your comment correctly, it was meant to be sarcastic, minimizing the physical and mental injury caused by this technique by pointing out that some U.S. counterterrorism personnel undergo it for short periods as part of their training. Correct me if your intent differed from my interpretation. Badagnani 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. According to the article, Nance is now an advisor ("consultant", in his own words) to the US government and a former Chief Instructor at SERE school. You might want to correct that.

2. I read both articles.

3. I wasn't being sarcastic. If waterboarding is classified as torture, it would presumably open up US personnel who engaged in it (such as Nance and SERE staff) to criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. 2340.

4. Whether it is "severe" or not has not been judicially determined, and "stress" is not part of the statutory definition of torture (whether in the United States or according to the Convention Against Torture).

5. Hence the controversy over whether it goes over the line or not. 220.255.36.206 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. You're turning the tables to imply that war crimes charges could be brought against Nance for subjecting U.S. counterterrorism staff to waterboarding as part of their training? This doesn't seem particularly relevant in light of the fact that this technique is being used in the "real world." For some reason you prefer to "turn the tables" against Nance, a la the Swift Boats, rather than actually address his commentary about this technique's adoption by U.S. personnel and the possible repercussions this may have on the U.S. (as well as on the individuals against whom the technique is used). Very strange. Regarding my use of the word "stress," thanks for pointing out that this term is not used in the actual conventions against torture. However, I believe mental torture (i.e. torture that inflicts lasting psychological harm) is certainly a form of torture, and is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. I don't have those Conventions in front of me but you seem to project the sense that you are very familiar with them. Badagnani 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

TGFW (Thank God for Wikipedia). Here is the quote from the Third Geneva Convention. You are correct that the term "stress" is not used.

“ No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. ”

Badagnani 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not turning any tables. If he applies waterboarding to his trainees, then criminal liability arises under 18 U.S.C. 2340 if it is classified as a form of torture.

2. Add Nance to the list of experts (already considerable) who view waterboarding as torture.

3. I don't know what Swift Boats are (?).

4. His commentary is just one of many taking the view that waterboarding is torture (see 2).

5. As such, it isn't dispositive on the question (just as the others weren't dispositive).

6. Torture as defined by CAT and 18 U.S.C 2340 may also involve severe mental pain or suffering. Whether waterboarding meets that definition of "severe" has not been judicially determined. The US Justice Department seems to think that the answer is "no" (and thus not torture). Hence the controversy. The Convention doesn't help you there. 220.255.36.206 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nance can't be prosecuted for waterboarding students. Everyone who goes through SERE has to sign a waiver.

As for Badagnani's comment, with the exception of common article 3, the 3rdGC doesn't apply to these detainees.

-- Randy2063 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I was just going to mention the inapplicability of 3rdGC (except for comon article 3). It's irrelevant in its entirety anyway - it doesn't go into anymore detail than CAT, so does not help in the determination of whether X practice qualifies as torture.

As for waiver, I don't know enough about that to comment on whether it trumps the statute or not. 220.255.36.206 19:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is/Is not redux

It seems that the consensus of Wikipedia writers here is that waterboarding is torture. But the question is how to characterize the US view. Is there any American official on record as expressing an opinion on the ethics or legality of waterboarding? I'm looking for something like the following:

• Major F. Lahem, director of SERE, said in February 2006, "Waterboarding is torture, and we teach our soldiers how to resist it." [real citation needed] - or
• General Dizz Aster, then in charge of all allied prisons in Iraq, said in May 2005, "We use tortures such as waterboarding whenever we think there's a significant chance of getting useful information from terrorism suspects. They're not prisoners of war, you know, since they weren't captured in uniform and there's no country willing to take responsibility for their actions. We can do whatever we want to the poor slobs." [real citation needed]

Without a defininitive official statement, we will be reduced to saying something like:

• Senator Guy Smiley (Dem., AZ) said that waterboarding is torture and the US should stop doing it. Smiley is leader of a group of congressmen seeking conviction or impeachment of President Bush or any other official ordering or condoning prisoner abuse. [real citation needed]

Sorry, no more time for this issue today; this is my best advice. Go to it, fellas. :-) --Uncle Ed 19:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. That is NOT the consensus. As Larry Cohen has put it, wikipedia is not the place for advocacy and the lede is not the place to be categorically stating that waterboarding "is" torture no matter how strongly we think it is. We can only describe the facts as they are: that numerous experts view waterboarding as torture, but may not come conclusively on one side of the controversy given that a significant legal opinion (the US Justice Department) comes down on the other side of the issue. 220.255.36.206 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. No one, from an IP editor to the most senior fellow, or in-between, can say that is/isn't is fact in regards to the torture question, which is the big bone of contention. The waters are so muddied from so many reliable sources and notable opinions on both sides that unless the sitting U.S. president or DOJ (US-specific), and something major like the UN security council, or the World Court (world-wide, trumps local US government opinion), says, "It's torture!" then we don't say it is or isn't either. I can't see whats hard to sort or figure on that, or why we'd even consider otherwise (no offense to anyone intended). I thought NPOV was non-negotiable at all times? • Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may analogize - it's a little bit like the abortion debate as far as borderline cases are concerned. "Murder" is defined in statute. Whether or not a fetus qualifies as a person isn't defined. Prior to Roe v. Wade, many would have asserted that abortion "is" murder because they regarded a fetus as a person. But it would not have been the place of Wikipedia (had it existed then) to claim that abortion "is" murder given the unclear status of the law at that time - no matter how many anti-abortionist doctors thought it was.

In the same way, people now disagree about whether waterboarding "is" torture. Torture is defined in statute - but waterboarding isn't. Absent a clear judicial or Congressional determination resolving the controversy (at least as regards the U.S.), my view is that wikipedia too ought not to come down categorically on one side or the other of the dispute. 220.255.36.206 20:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding (forcing water into a restrained prisoner's lungs, as it is described by the U.S. official charged with training SERE personnel in this technique) is torture, by definition. Our own article on Torture quotes international law as saying that torture is:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

This does not prevent us from mentioning, in context, that some officials in the current U.S. administration claim otherwise. Badagnani 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying abortion "is" murder, by definition. That's an argument from assertion, and not good enough for NPOV. 220.255.36.206 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it really isn't like that. Badagnani 21:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"No, it really isn't like that" isn't an argument. You're just insisting. Insisting doesn't make it so. Larry Cohen has been the most lucid on the issue: stick to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Truly, the two issues are not analogous, as I think most other editors would acknowledge. Badagnani 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has previously extended these protections to irregular forces (as in Vietnam), presumably to protect the U.S.'s own military personnel from reciprocal torture.[18] Badagnani 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the previous posts addressing the GC - they are irrelevant. Why are you citing the GC as if it were relevant? They go into less detail than the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and 18 U.S.C. 2340, which are the pertinent legal instruments at issue. 220.255.36.206 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the current U.S. administration, the current situation is "a war." The U.S. has previously extended the Geneva Conventions protections to irregular forces (as in Vietnam), presumably to protect the U.S.'s own military personnel from reciprocal torture. Nance discusses this point in his article (which you again fail to address, preferring instead to dwell on the possible prosecution that could be leveled at Nance himself, for training his students in waterboarding). Badagnani 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, that a state of war exists doesn't mean that the Third GC applies to anyone and everyone. It applies only to the treatment of POWs. Except for common article 3, a detainee does not come under the Third GC if he's NOT a POW - if he's an unlawful combatant, for example. I believe Randy above has already explained this to you.

Whether or not the United States, as a matter of policy, extends the Third GC to everyone is irrelevant. The third GC does not legally compel the United States to extend its protections to unlawful combatants (even if the US may choose to do so as a matter of policy). This, the US does on its own discretion and is NOT legally compelled to do so by the Third GC. So what in the world you think your argument is trying to accomplish, besides exposing a poor understanding of the Conventions, is a mystery to me.

And finally, Nance's point is completely irrelevant to whether waterboarding "is" torture or not. None of your hand-waving is on point. 220.255.36.206 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to using insulting language like "hand-waving." I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time, however. Nance is one expert (likely one of the U.S.'s primary experts on the technique, having both experienced and taught it, unlike most of the politicians and attorneys debating the topic). However, regarding whether waterboarding is torture, don't take my word for it, take the definition of waterboarding (forcing water into the lungs of a restrained prisoner) and compare it to the definition of Torture in our own article, as defined by international law (I thought I already presented this above...):

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Badagnani 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "unlawful combatant" and its interpretation in the U.S.'s Military Commissions Act of 2006 are disputed. See Unlawful combatant#International criticism of unlawful combatant status. Badagnani 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is hand-waving, and a distraction, since you apparently think statements like "it is" and "it really isn't" constitute valid rejoinders.

Nance is one expert, among many. You can add Nance to the references appended to the opening lede which says "numerous experts have described this technique as torture" -- Nance is one of them.

As for whether waterboarding "is" torture or not - I'm not taking your word for it. Quoting the definition of torture from CAT or 18 U.S.C. 2340 doesn't resolve the question conclusively, since the US Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - which based its opinion on "international law" (CAT) and 18 U.S.C. 2340 - thinks otherwise based on the same international and domestic law that you cite.

Since a significant legal opinion put out by the DOJ disagrees with the opinion of other experts - we cannot come down conclusively on one side of the controversy without violating NPOV. We can only describe the facts as they are - that many experts describe waterboarding as torture (true), but Wikipedia itself can make no categorical claims in favour of either position (whether the Justice Department's or the other numerous experts). This is not difficult to understand. Why can't people just stick to NPOV? 220.255.36.206 22:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The view that waterboarding is not torture is an extreme, minority position that is at odds with the definition of waterboarding (forcing water into the lungs of a prisoner) and the definition of torture, as defined by international law in our own article on Torture:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Thus, the stated view (of a few officials of the current U.S. administration) that waterboarding is *not* torture can be mentioned in the article, in context, but privileging the fringe POV that it is not torture is really not an option. Badagnani 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You can characterise the Justice Department's view as "extreme", but it doesn't make it any less significant a legal opinion. Your personal views ("extreme") don't count on Wikipedia, unfortunately.

And can you please stop repeating pretty-quotes of statutes that you've just quoted a few lines further up? You're just messing up the formatting of this Talk section and making it very hard for other editors to follow. Spare a thought.

The stated view that waterboarding is "not" torture is not being "privileged". The article does not say that waterboarding is "not" torture. It says, quite clearly, that numerous experts describe it as torture. Nowhere does the article come down on one side to say that waterboarding is "not" torture. If anything, YOU are trying to privilege the view that waterboarding "is" torture by having wikipedia come down conclusively on one side of the controversy. NPOV means not privileging any viewpoint when there are significant opinions on both sides of the issue. Why are you insisting that Wikipedia come down on one-side of the issue then? For the last time: stick to NPOV. 220.255.36.206 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, because, by definition, as stated above, this technique constitutes torture. It is fine, however, to discuss, in proper context, the stated, fringe position, on the part of some officials of the current U.S. administration, that it does not constitute torture. Badagnani 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. I've already addressed that. To repeat: that's like saying abortion "is" murder by definition. That's an argument from assertion, and not good enough for NPOV.

And your response to that was to insist that . . . "it really isn't".

That's not much of a reply to say the least.

Someone who disagrees with you can just as well insist that waterboarding isn't torture by definition because the pain isn't "severe" enough. It doesn't make him right. Just as it doesn't make you right. NPOV is here precisely to counter specious arguments like yours. Stick to it. Stop pushing POV and coming down categorically on one side of the controversy. 220.255.36.206 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really not analogous because there is controversy over whether the subject of abortion is human/living/viable. I have no opinion on that particular controversy, which is not analogous to the waterboarding controversy, because there is no dispute that the subjects of waterboarding are human/living/viable.

Further, as stated earlier: by definition, waterboarding constitutes torture. Waterboarding consists of a prisoner being restrained and water being forced into his/her lungs. This does clearly fall under the definition of torture, as defined by international law:

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

I don't object to the fringe position, on the part of some officials of the current U.S. administration, that waterboarding is not torture, if it is presented in the proper context.

Badagnani 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You write: "It's really not analogous because there is controversy over whether the subject of abortion is human/living/viable."

And there is a controversy over whether waterboarding "is" torture. It is quite analogous. Both terms depend on the "definition" - whether a fetus is a person, and whether waterboarding is torture. In both cases, there's controversy over the definition. Please don't claim that there is no controversy over waterboarding - there quite clearly is.

And why are you repeating the definition of torture everytime you reply? You just quoted it a few lines up. And you quoted it again a few lines above that. We all can see it. Why do you insist on past a definition over and over again? It makes the discussion difficult for other editors to follow. Stop clogging up the page.

Your insistence that it is torture "by definition" isn't a proper argument. The Justice Department can also claim that waterboarding isn't torture, "by definition". If you don't have a serious argument in reply, stop repeating yourself. 220.255.36.206 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

18 USC 2340 defines severe mental pain as including "threat of imminent death." The one thing everyone seems to agree on about waterboarding is that victims are made to believe death is imminent. As to other points, if there were a "significant legal opinion put out by the DOJ disagrees with the opinion of other experts" on waterboarding being torture, we would, of course have to consider its views. But no such legal opinion has been published. Instead we have media reports of the existence of secret opinions. The Bush administration refuses to say whether it considers waterboarding torture. As for waterboarding's use in SERE training being illegal if it is deemed torture, a major purpose of SERE training is to expose forces most likely to end up in enemy territory, such as aircrews, to the adverse conditions they might face if captured, including torture. Activities in military training, and SERE in particular, violate any number of criminal statutes: battery, assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, etc. I don't believe any of these statutes have specific exemptions for military training. Instead there are separate laws and regulations governing what can and cannot be done in military training.- -agr 23:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent. The perceived threat of death is not the same thing as actual threat of death (Russian Roulette, for example).

As for OLC opinions - one was published affirming the validity of earlier OLC opinions on the subject (see footnote 8).

On battery, assault, and kidnapping - I highly doubt that any statutes were violated since common law defences to all three include an element of consent. No such defence exists for 18 USC 2340.

Since waterboarding - and not electrocution, pliers to balls, amputation, fingernail pulling, being beaten to a pulp or other obvious forms of torture - is part of SERE training, some would argue that there is a qualitative difference between being waterboarded, and being tortured. 220.255.36.206 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that waterboarding (you make no distinction between waterboarding conducted for very brief periods of time or that conducted for extended periods) does not place the life of the subject in jeopardy is untenable and ludicrous, and shows that you have not carefully read the article by the U.S. expert in this technique, who has an outlook quite different from yours. Badagnani 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So according to you, there is a distinction between "brief" waterboarding and "extended" waterboarding? Are you saying that "brief" waterboarding isn't torture, hence the distinction? In other words, you are saying that some forms of waterboarding are not torture? If so, that's excellent. We've now come to a consensus that waterboarding isn't, categorically, torture. Thank you. 220.255.36.206 04:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course I am not saying that. I'm not sure I can understand the fervency you seem to have to show (wish?) that this practice is not torture. It's certainly very strange, in light of the evidence presented here, again and again. According to our own definition of torture, as stated in the lead of the Torture article (should I present it again, as you seem not to have read it?), inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering for the purpose of eliciting information from a prisoner is "torture," whether it is brief or not. You had stated, emphatically (and quite wrongly) that this practice is not dangerous and cannot lead to the death of the subject, hence my introduction of the concept of waterboarding that is conducted for an extended period, which certainly carries the risk of death to the subject. It's interesting that you continue to questions of me, while you fail to address the ones I have raised. Badagnani 05:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You said to make a distinction. Perhaps you should explain what your point is instead of questioning my "wishes"? Since no one is arguing for the 'other' side of the debate, I figured I would take up the slack, seeing as POV is being pushed heavily by one side at the expense of NPOV. You don't seem to be able to explain the distinction now, so I'm puzzled as to why you would raise the point in the first place. 220.255.36.206 05:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that waterboarding victims (either in past eras or in recent years) have died from undergoing this procedure? Badagnani 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

waterboarding is torture "by definition"

Badagnani says that waterboarding is torture "by definition". The argument has been repeated ad nauseum, so I'd like some clarification. Can we have the definition that says waterboarding "is" torture? Thank you. 220.255.36.206 23:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Shall I give the definition again? I think I have given it about 4 or 5 times now, since you seem to have overlooked it each time you've made a new comment. The definition shows that this technique is unequivocally a form of torture, notwithstanding the recent fringe opinion by some members of the current U.S. administration. I believe you have not addressed the questions I have asked above, so in this context I'm not sure I want to spend the time addressing yours. Badagnani 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Please do. Where does your definition say "waterboarding is torture"? Please quote the exact part that says "waterboarding is torture". If you can't, I understand. We'll just take it that you've failed to answer the question. 220.255.36.206 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture doesn't include the exact quote "cutting off portions of the body is torture" either. To argue that it is therefore not torture is to not understand core ideas about language like "definition" and "meaning." Obviously, cutting off someone's toes for the purpose of extracting information is torture: the necessary and sufficient conditions of "torture" have been met (severe physical or mental pain inflicted to coerce behavior). It doesn't matter if person X or anyone else claims that it isn't torture, if it can be demonstrated that the conditions for definition are met. If Richard Simmons argued tomorrow that ice cream is made out of circuit boards, that doesn't mean the page for "ice cream" should start off with "Ice cream is an edible substance. Most experts agree it is a milk based product." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensional_definition Ofus 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no, but it's pretty obvious that cutting off body parts will result in "severe physical pain" - it results in lasting physical injury. No one disputes that. The problem for you is that waterboarding results in no lasting physical injury, and so does not cross the threshold of "severe physical pain" so as to amount to torture. And that is precisely what is in dispute.

I take it that you are unable to provide the definition asked for? Noted. 220.255.36.206 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. Torture is severe physical or mental pain inflicted to coerce behavior. Your personal definition of torture, limited to only physical pain, is irrelevant. Ofus 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You're resorting to personal attacks. Why?

And please. I did not "limit" my definition to physical pain. It is just one element of the definition under the Convention Against Torture and 18 USC 2340 that is obviously met by the "cutting off of body parts".

Waterboarding does not obviously meet the threshold in THAT element of the definition. Nor (arguably) any other element of the CAT and 18 USC 2340 definition of torture. Hence the controversy.

And you still have not provided a definition that says "waterboarding is torture". Simply insisting that it "is", as Badagnani has repeatedly done, is not an argument. It's a variation of bald assertion and begging the question. I take it that no definition is forthcoming. 220.255.36.206 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that no definition is forthcoming. Since Badagnani is unable to provide the definition he claims to have stating that "waterboarding is torture", I'll have to reluctantly conclude that his claim is false. 220.255.36.206 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No definition is forthcoming? Could I waterboard you to the point where the pain and panic force you to agree and believe that it is torture? If so, it is torture. If not, waterboarding has no value as a forceful device of manipulation, making it of no use in extracting information and making the question moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.77.142 (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By that standard, you could bore me to the point where dullness and torpor force me to agree and believe that boredom is torture. So boredom is torture? What an exceedingly nonsensical argument. 220.255.114.59 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Forced sensory deprivation (forced boredom) is torture. Any better "rebuttals?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.64.21 (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to repeat what I already said, but the definition of torture under US law includes the treat of imminent death, specifically, 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..."The relevant language in 19 USC 2340 reads: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—...(C) the threat of imminent death;..." Note that no physical pain is required. And every description of waterboarding says that the victim is made to believe they are going to die. --agr 10:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Erm, it's 18 USC 2340. Not 19. This mis-citation of the torture statute does not inspire confidence in your reply! (I'm joking. I understand it's an innocent mistake.)

2. I dislike repeating too. And I know the definition very well, thank you. I was the one who quoted it to Badagnani when he was still uselessly quoting the Third Geneva Convention. (He's now fond of re-quoting it back to me, as if I wasn't the one who corrected him in the first place.)

3. I never said that only physical pain is required. But physical pain is ONE prong of the definition: specifically subsections (1), (2)(A), and (2)(D) of 18 USC 2340.

4. "Imminent death" has already been addressed below. See my discussion with Ka-Ping Yee. Waterboarding does not involve "threat of imminent death" since the process is halted before death actually occurs. The victim's beliefs have nothing to do with it. "Belief" is not part of the statute.

You're rehashing old ground that has already been covered, and I believe, refuted. 220.255.114.59 10:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Threat of imminent death

Above, 220.255.36.206 writes: "Except that there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent. The perceived threat of death is not the same thing as actual threat of death (Russian Roulette, for example)." This is nonsense.

1. Claim: "Death isn't actually imminent." False, for simple reasons:

• Waterboarding suffocates the prisoner.
• Suffocation is a method of killing.
• Suffocation leads to imminent death.

2. Claim: The perceived threat of death is not torture because "it is not the same thing as actual threat of death." Also false:

• Mock execution creates a perceived threat of death.
• Mock execution does not actually lead to death.
• Yet mock execution is considered torture.

I'm not saying you can't make other arguments if you wish. But this particular contention -- that waterboarding fails to meet the "threat of imminent death" qualification for torture -- is straightforwardly invalid. Either one of the two arguments just presented is sufficient to reject this contention. Ka-Ping Yee 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Claim: "Death isn't actually imminent." True, for simple reasons:

• Controlled drowning means that the prisoner does not actually drown.

• The prisoner does not actually drown, so death does not actually occur.
• Since death does not actually occur, there is no imminent threat of death.

2. Good point. Can you provide a source for the claim that "mock execution is considered torture"? Thank you. 220.255.36.206 05:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In the PDF linked, I tried searching for the words "mock" (0 instances found) and "execution" (same). Can you point me to the relevant section?

The PDF is not authoritative law by the way. Army Field Manuals do not have force of law and are subject to routine change by HQ, so I wouldn't take what it says as dispositive. 220.255.36.206 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I guess there's no need now. I've just found out that the Army Field Manual you link to is obsolete and has actually been superseded: this is the latest version of FM 34-52 (now FM 2-22.3), published on September 6, 2006. It's searchable. And nowhere does it state that "mock execution is considered torture". It says that mock execution is prohibited, but that's very different from saying that mock execution "is considered torture".

And to add to what was mentioned above, Army Field Manuals apply to DOD/army personnel only. This is specifically stated in the Preface. So your citation is irrelevant anyway.

Your claim is false. Your second point is as invalid as your first. 220.255.36.206 07:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The newer Army Field Manual you refer to replaces the listing of examples with a reference to 18 U.S.C. 2340, so we are back to "threat of imminent death." Your argument rests on the claim that no situation may be called "threat of imminent death" unless actual death occurs. Correct? Ka-Ping Yee 13:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a mock execution if it's made clear to the prisoner that he's not going to die.

A colonel threatened a prisoner with a gun several years ago, and then fired the gun over that prisoner's head to get him to break. That was a mock execution, and he was charged for it.

Telling someone he's not going to die while making him wish for death could be torture but it's not mock execution.

Some of the faux "human rights" advocates may say otherwise but their record shows they tend to be biased in one direction only.

-- Randy2063 15:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Stay on topic, please. This thread is specifically about the disputed claims (and I quote 220.255.36.206): "there is no threat of imminent death since death isn't actually imminent" and "Since death does not actually occur, there is no imminent threat of death". Ka-Ping Yee 17:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's a real risk that actual death occurs (like Russian Roulette). Not if the process is halted such that death does not occur. That's why it's called "controlled drowning" - you don't actually drown. You're hardly going to say that bungee jumping involves the threat of imminent death since you don't actually plunge to your death.

Russian Roulette involves the REAL possibility of death built into the scenario (that's why there's an actual threat of imminent death). The latter two don't, unless there's a catastrophic failure of some sort.

And that's just one plausible reason why the US Justice Department concluded that waterboarding did not violate the torture statute. Hence your argument is moot for that precise reason: the DOJ takes the position opposite to you.

Of course, POV-pushers coming down squarely on one side of the controversy don't even want to give credence to the plausibility of the DOJ position; because it means they don't get to say, unequivocally, that waterboarding "is" torture.

If NPOV has any meaning at all, it means acknowledging that significant legal entities disagree. To pretend that the DOJ opinion doesn't exist, and to come down squarely on one side of the debate is to violate NPOV just because you find one side of the debate disagreeable. And that's shameful agenda-pushing. 220.255.114.59 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, stay on topic. Name-calling your opponents "POV-pushers" does not constitute an argument. I do not know if you intended to apply that label to me; nonetheless, as I have refrained from calling you names, I request that you extend me the same respect. And allow me to remind you again, this thread is specifically about your claim that, unless actual death occurs, there can be no threat of imminent death. This thread is not a general argument about all the possible reasons that waterboarding is or is not torture. This is just about your stated interpretation of the phrase "threat of imminent death."

Now, on the topic: to claim that actual death is a necessary part of "threat of imminent death" is to fail to understand the meanings of the words "threat" and "imminent". It appears that you treat the term as if these words have no meaning at all. To demonstrate this let me ask you a few questions:

• What is the difference between "threat of imminent death" and "death"?

Person A is strangling Person B. Person A has been strangling Person B, and Person B has been unable to breathe, for the past 60 seconds. Person B is struggling to escape and running out of oxygen.

• Does strangulation involve the real possibility of death?
• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?
• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

Ka-Ping Yee 23:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am staying on topic. I gave you a direct answer. This discussion matters insofar as it relates to the "is/isn't" question. If you're not insisting on coming down squarely on one side of the debate (and violating NPOV), then you shouldn't be taking exception to it. (But apparently you do.)

This is about one plausible interpretation of the phrase "threat of imminent death". And therefore about the plausibility of the DOJ argument. Please do not mischaracterise my response.

Now to your questions.

• What is the difference between "threat of imminent death" and "death"?

Death is actual death. "Threat of imminent death" is the impending, real risk of actual death.

• Does strangulation involve the real possibility of death?

No. Because Person A halts the process and does not allow death to occur.

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?

No. He's struggling to breathe, but isn't actually struggling for "survival" since his life was never at stake.

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

No. Since his death was never "imminent" given that Person A stops the strangulation as a matter of protocol before death occurs. That's the point of waterboarding.

Of course, while demanding answers from me, you completely fail to address my Russian Roulette example (an impending REAL risk of actual death) which illuminates the distinction quite well. So I repeat:

There is no real risk of imminent death if the process is halted such that death does not occur. That's why it's called "controlled drowning" - you don't actually drown because that possibility is foreclosed from the beginning. Likewise, you don't say that bungee jumping involves the threat of imminent death when you aren't actually plunging to your death.

By contrast, there's a REAL possibility - as opposed to a foreclosed one - that when you pull the trigger in Russian Roulette a chambered round will fire.

Please do not say that these aren't plausible distinctions. They clearly are. That we're even having this argument is proof enough of their plausibility. (And therefore the DOJ's position.) NPOV wins. 220.255.114.59 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "No. Because Person A halts the process and does not allow death to occur." I did not say that Person A would halt. I think you misunderstood my example. This is all I specified: "Person A has been strangling Person B, and Person B has been unable to breathe, for the past 60 seconds." Like anyone else, Person B does not have the ability to predict the future.

At that moment, what is Person B experiencing? Imagine yourself in the position of person B, if you like. How would you describe what you are experiencing?

With the scenario clarified, would you please answer my questions again?

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B is struggling for survival?

• Would it be reasonable to say that Person B experiencing the threat of imminent death?

• If someone is strangled for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

• If someone is waterboarded for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

Thank you.

(By the way, the mere occurrence of an argument does not establish the plausibility of anything. I can argue all day that 2+2=3 and that mere act of arguing does not make it plausible. Plausibility is established by evidence and reasoning.) Ka-Ping Yee 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "I did not say that Person A would halt."

Then your example does not apply to waterboarding, since waterboarding halts the process before death occurs. That's the point.

If you want to make an argument by analogy, you better make sure your argument is analogous to waterboarding. If it's not, as your "no halting in my example" shows, then your example is irrelevant.

Since your example is inapposite, your argument collapses.

You then ask:

• If someone is waterboarded for five minutes, are they not likely to die?

Then it isn't waterboarding. It's drowning. Waterboarding, as multiple sources have stated, halts before the subject actually drowns. That is, it stops before actual death occurs.

Your question is akin to asking: "if someone is bungee jumping without a rope, are they not likely to die?" Well then it isn't bungee jumping now is it?

And once again, you doggedly refuse to address my Russian Roulette example, which illuminates the point quite well. By now, you should know full well what I mean. Please do not ignore clear answers to your questions. 220.255.114.59 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to address in that example. We both agree that a person playing Russian Roulette experiences a threat of imminent death. That is not in dispute.

Where we disagree is that I believe a person being strangled experiences a threat of imminent death regardless of whether the strangulation stops at some point in the future, and you do not. I am merely trying to learn exactly what your position is with respect to the meaning of "threat of imminent death." That is all that is on the table in this thread.

Based on what you've said so far, my understanding of your position is that if someone is strangled for a minute and a half, and released alive, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death; and if someone is strangled for five minutes until they die, then they did experience a threat of imminent death all along. Before we continue, let me make sure I have that right. Does that correctly correspond to your understanding of "threat of imminent death"? Ka-Ping Yee 21:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is nothing to address in that example, then there's nothing to address in yours. You clearly disagree that the threat of imminent death in Russian Roulette is different from the "threat" in waterboarding, where there is no real risk of death since that possibility is foreclosed. Yet you refuse to address the example which illuminates this distinction.

My position is that if practice X involves strangling someone and halting before death, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death. If someone is strangled with the full intention of killing him, then it's NOT practice X, since the possibility of death is not foreclosed. Since that possibility is not foreclosed, then there exists a REAL possibility of actual death, and therefore an actual threat. 220.255.112.159 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting theories, but in today's interview here, Henri Alleg, who was subjected to waterboarding in 1957, states that he feared he was dying, and further stated that many individuals subjected to waterboarding did die, "accidentally," as a result of undergoing this procedure. So it looks as if your theory (or perhaps you are simply playing "devil's advocate" for the lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department; it is hard to tell) simply does not square with reality. Badagnani 00:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I just heard the interview. Interesting, but I already addressed this above: "Russian Roulette involves the REAL possibility of death built into the scenario (that's why there's an actual threat of imminent death). The latter two [waterboarding] don't, unless there's a catastrophic failure of some sort." According to Alleg, there were drownings because of accidental failures in the application of waterboarding. Sounds like Alleg agrees with me.

Are radio programs reliable sources? Or "fringe opinion" as you call it? 220.255.112.159 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is way off into OR-land. Unless someone has a reliable source for the theory that there's no threat of imminent death unless someone actually dies, this discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --agr 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm demonstrating the plausibleness of the DOJ position (which some editors persistently refuse to acknowledge). As I said above, this argument is moot because a valid authority (the DOJ) takes the opposite position, whether or not you agree with the plausibility of their reasoning. 220.255.112.159 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position: "My position is that if practice X involves strangling someone and halting before death, then at no point did they experience a threat of imminent death." This is really quite an incredible position. (May I even say breathtakingly incredible? Ha ha.) Your position requires that strangling victims see into the future -- that they somehow predict, accurately, while they are being strangled, whether the strangling will halt before they die, and that these events that have not happened yet actually change what they are experiencing in the present. Since your argument depends on making information travel back in time, it can be safely dismissed. Ka-Ping Yee 02:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to resort to caricature?

Nobody said anything about requiring the victims to predict the future. The statutory language "threat of imminent death" says nothing about the victim's beliefs or powers of prediction. Do you see "belief" mentioned in the statute? I don't. Whether a threat exists or not is an objective state of affairs that does not depend on the victim seeing into the future.

Nor does it depend on "making information travel back in time" since the possibility of death is foreclosed from the beginning - and that information is already "present" from the beginning. Just because you're unaware of a threat doesn't make a threat non-existent. Similarly, just because you're unaware of a non-threat doesn't make the lack of a threat non-existent. In other words, that a person is unaware that waterboarding will halt does not make the fact that it will halt any less real.

I understand that you're very keen to win the argument and so 'dismiss' it, but please don't put words in my mouth. It convinces no one, not even yourself. 220.255.112.159 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You say: "In other words, that a person is unaware that waterboarding will halt does not make the fact that it will halt any less real." Yet you claim that this thing the person is unaware of changes what they are experiencing such that it is not torture. And at the same time you claim that something that has not happened yet can be treated as a "fact." There's no need for me to repeat the flaws in your reasoning yet again; other readers can judge for themselves whether there's anything sensible about this particular claim you're making. Ka-Ping Yee 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Except there have been no flaws in my reasoning. (Misrepresenting what I say doesn't count.)

Here, a simple example will suffice. If someone programs a machine to stop just before it hits the ground, the fact that I'm unaware that the machine will not actually hit the ground does not change that fact (that it will not hit the ground) one bit.

A person on an amusement park ride that plunges towards the ground is not under "the threat of imminent death" even if he was unaware that the ride actually halts before it hits the ground.

Surely you have no problem wrapping your brain around this obvious fact?

Thankfully other readers will be more charitable and less prone to misrepresentating what I say. 220.255.112.159 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone is driving, he or she is often technically under the threat of imminent death (see car accident for details), and thus in some people's reasoning a person who is driving is torturing himself or herself. As for the proverbial person on a roller coaster, the vast majority of people make it out safely, but there have been a few deaths on amusement park rides "plunging towards the ground" or making other weird moves, occasionally due to drunken stupidity on the part of the deceased. Nonetheless, in both cases, people aim and expect to come out safely. Thus, shouldn't we be talking more about a perceived threat of imminent death, as well as the actual threat of imminent death? Perceptions matter. The person being waterboarded is in the midst of an incomplete (most of the time) drowning, yet there is often the perceived (and sometimes actual) threat of imminent death. Moreover, the person is made to feel pain or discomfort deliberately, for the purpose of punishing or extracting information (often a pretext to punish the same person), and that satisfies my definition of torture (which could in principle extend to any means of deliberate hurting or discomforting of captives for a period longer than an instant). 204.52.215.107 14:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should amend "discomfort" to mean "excessive discomfort". The boundary between torture and nontorture is often in the eye of the beholder. 204.52.215.107 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did try to make that distinction very early in this discussion, but my interlocutor won't have it. Such distinctions are not very congenial to him/her because it means that the DOJ argument is plausible - something s/he feels uncomfortable acknowledging. If you look at 18 USC 2340 (hereinafter "the Torture Statute"), there is no mention of "perception" in subsection (2)(C). Instead, the Statute mentions "threat". Not "being threatened," not "feeling threatened," but actual threat. If threatened (which connotes a subjective component) had been used instead of threat, then I'd agree with you. But it wasn't.

As it happens, (2)(B) does use the word "threatened" - so by normal canons of statutory construction, you cannot say that there's no difference in meaning between the two. Congress is specific in its choice of terms. All this is OR demonstrating the plausibleness of the DOJ position. It isn't necessary, as I've explained to agr above, but it helps make the DOJ position more palatable, seeing as some editors repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that a contrary view by a significant legal entity is possible. 220.255.112.159 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New WAPO article on Waterboarding

[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Four points:

1. FWIW, this one is also by Evan Wallach.
2. it includes a quote acknowledging that it was "not so painful." The legal definition of torture seems to require pain.
3. the technique in that case was probably different, as it was performed by the Japanese, and another one says it was "almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water." A recent ABC News piece elsewhere suggests they can't suck in the water using the CIA's technique.
4. as I said before, other circumstances in the Japanese cases were different, so the legality may be different.

If they're different techniques then it is entirely possible that one is legal, and the other is not.

BTW: There is a lawyer named Eli Wallach who did some work defending the fascists at GTMO. Does anyone know if they're related?

-- Randy2063 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone have defended the fascists at Gitmo? We haven't tried them yet, and given the cowardice of the Democratic Party in taking impeachment off the table, we're not likely to. Grace Note 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit off topic but my answer won't be.

The fascists at GTMO aren't all due for a trial (sorry, but the laws of war don't require it). Hicks did get a trial, and there will be others.

More to the point, despite their high-minded talk, it appears that the Democrats may not be much different on these matters. All three leading Democratic contenders leave the door open for torture. Looking back further, Gore himself had encouraged extraordinary rendition when he was vice president. It'd be shocked if Democrats wouldn't have waterboarded three fascists.

-- Randy2063 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question

And now, after that digression, back to the original question: is waterboarding torture? The answer, according to the definition of torture in our own article on the subject (as defined by international law), is yes.

“ ...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. ”

Badagnani 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Where does your cited definition say that "waterboarding is torture"? Oh wait. It doesn't.

The definition of torture does NOT say that waterboarding is torture. It doesn't mention waterboarding at all.

If the question were so easily resolved, there would be no controversy. Think about it. 220.255.114.59 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment shows simply that you do not understand the meaning of the term "any act." Now let's move on to improving the article, as well as many of the other 1.7 million or so articles we have at Wikipedia. Badagnani 01:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a wild guess but I'd say it's somewhat unlikely that the U.S. Attorney General referred to "our own article on the subject" when determining that it's not torture. He probably checked the actual treaties and consulted with medical authorities on the definition of pain.

-- Randy2063 01:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amusing again. Where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Oh wait. It doesn't. Nor does it say that "waterboarding is torture".

Give it up. 220.255.114.59 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment shows that you do not have an understanding of the meaning of term "any act," as stated in the international definition of torture. The subject is not particularly amusing. Badagnani 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Oh wait. It doesn't. In other words, the definition does NOT say that waterboarding "is" torture.

I'm sure the DOJ reads statutes more competently. You might want to think about that. 220.255.114.59 01:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only do all the sources show that this is the case, but U.S. military personnel were courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding against Vietnamese prisoners in 1968, as were Japanese military personnel after World War II. These courtmartials took place because the practice is torture. Waterboarding (which was called "water torture" in earlier eras) does not cease to be torture because a few individuals in the current U.S. administration attempt to change the terminology used. Badagnani 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does this always come up?

U.S. military personnel are not authorized to waterboard enemy prisoners, regardless of whether or not waterboarding is torture. This is especially true if the prisoners fall under the 3rdGC. That also explains why the Japanese example isn't relevant.

-- Randy2063 02:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Awww. You failed to answer the question.

Badagnani is unable to point out where the definition says "waterboarding is an act which inflicts severe pain or suffering". Hence he is changing the subject, and evading the question. 220.255.114.59 01:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As of now, Badagnani is unable to answer two direct questions.

Where does your definition say that "waterboarding is torture"? Please provide a quote.

(Badagnani doesn't say.)

Where does your definition say that waterboarding is an "act" that inflicts "severe pain or suffering"? Please provide a quote.

(Again, no answer.)

At least one source quoted by Randy above states that the (physical) pain was "not so painful". In other words, not "severe".

Since Badagnani is unable to provide supporting quotes for his claim that waterboarding "is" torture, we'll have to conclude, sadly, that his claim is false. Nothwithstanding his numerous, spurious claims to the contrary. 220.255.114.59 01:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) stated on November 6, 2007: "Are we going to have to outlaw the rack because there's a question of whether the rack is used improperly in this country?" Every possible torture that fits our international definition of torture does not need to be enumerated in the statutes, if they do indeed fit the definition of Torture, as waterboarding certainly does. Badagnani 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"demeaning comments"

Forgive me for butting in here, but why does he have to bow to your personal demands, exactly? He's provided plenty of evidence showing that it is and has been considered torture by many. To ignore that would make a poor article indeed. He doesn't have to bow to your special definitional demands in the face of all these other sources. I'd suggest you take yourself down a notch and start negotiating, rather than making ridiculous personal demands. Also, you may want to review Wikipedia:Etiquette, as you are being a bit rude with your demeaning and sarcastic remarks. Behavior like that doesn't help discussion and can get you blocked from editing. Wrad 02:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Since it was he who started the "definitional" argument. If he can't provide quotes from the definition to support his point, then his definitional argument fails.

As for "other sources", you'll find that I haven't disputed them. In fact, I agree with the opening lede: that numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture. What I disagree with, and what Badagnani has repeatedly tried to push via his definitional argument, is the categorical statement that waterboarding "is" torture. Since this is a live controversy, with significant legal opinions on either side of the debate, my view is that wikipedia ought not to come down squarely on one side of the issue. That would be a violation of NPOV.

Badagnani was asked to support his claims. He was unable to. That's all to it. 220.255.114.59 03:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care who is right. I do care that you're being so rude. The reason this page is blocked is not that there is a dispute. Civilized editors have disputes all the time and are able to resolve them pretty well. The reason it's blocked is because people like you are acting in an innappropriate manner. Stop demeaning others and you just might get your way easier. You can win an argument without demeaning people. In fact, it's easier to win that way. Learn some negotiation and persuasion skills and I guarantee you'll get your way more often. Behavior such as yours hurts the encyclopedia and grinds everything to a halt. It causes good editors to leave. Cut it out. Wrad 03:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Right. Asking for supporting quotes is "rude", and "demanding". And now you're attacking me personally, when I haven't actually demeaned anyone. I mean, really. Take your own advice. Please do not derail this thread. Thanks. 220.255.114.59 03:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the truth. Statements such as "Oh wait. It doesn't." "Awww. You failed to answer the question." "Amusing again." and "Give it up." Are pretty dang demeaning and are keeping you from getting your way. I don't care if you ask for supporting quotes, but how hard can it be to cut these silly statements out of your dialog? You ARE demeaning people. Stop it. Wrad 03:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not. You're attacking me because of my stylistic tics? These can be in NO WAY construed as personal attacks. Expressions of amusement, "aww", and "oh wait" don't count. "Give it up" is no different from YOUR "cut it out" and "stop it". Good grief. You're giving me grief because of this? You're derailing the thread now. I have no interest in petty arguments. Sorry. 220.255.114.59 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new section for the derailment. Wrad - I'll stop whatever you want me to stop because I'm not really interested in this argument. Leave comments on my talk page and I'll try to toe your line. 220.255.114.59 03:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm glad you've agreed to stop, even if you don't agree with how I characterize what you say. I just don't like seeing another editor getting treated this way, even if he is wrong. I've seen good people leave the encyclopedia for less than this. Wrad 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 220.255.114.59 03:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Notion of NPOV

From WP:NPOV

The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is not the place to argue whether waterboarding is torture. There are notable people who say that it is not, so that viewpoint should be included. This opinion is substantially the minority opinion, so that should also be made clear.

Whether waterboarding is torture "in reality" or "by definition" actually seems to me to be irrelevant from the neutral point of view. Even disagreements which contradict obvious facts or simple logic must be included, if they are held by notable authorities. The point is that what is obvious or simple to one person, might be non-obvious or obviously incorrect to another. Even among ourselves, several points of view on this topic are being argued. Worldworld 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur fully. The United States DOJ is a significant legal entity, and certainly not "fringe" by any stretch of the imagination. NPOV applies everywhere in the article, including the lede. 220.255.114.59 04:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Who are the "notable people who say that it is not" torture? Provide a citation to a reliable source and, of course, we should include in the article the views of those persons if they are "notable authorities." All we have above is speculation about what secret DOJ legal opinions might say. That is OR and not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The DOJ has not taken any position in public on the question.--agr 04:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OR? Hardly. According to this article, "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning." So the claim is well-sourced and suitable for inclusion. Please stick to NPOV. Thank you. 220.255.114.59 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Ministry of Truth says it is true, then it must be true, eh Winston?140.140.58.8 14:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead of the article is not the place for presenting "all opinions" on a topic, particularly when the fringe opinion is held by so few individuals. However, discussing this opinion in context in the article is just fine. Badagnani 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is the place. There are only two opinions on this topic - either "is" or "isn't". Excluding one means violating NPOV. Bald statements like "Waterboarding is torture" (or its converse "Waterboarding isn't torture") that exclude the other viewpoint have no place in the lede. So please follow NPOV, thank you. 220.255.114.59 06:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition is clear:

"...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

Conversely, the fringe opinion that, contrary to the definition, waterboarding is not torture (despite several hundred years of such opinion being the norm around the world, including in the U.S., which court martialed its own officers in 1968 for perpetrating this practice against foreign prisoners), does not deserve to be privileged as "another viewpoint" in the lead. Like a similar fringe viewpoint--that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years in age--such an opinion may deserve its own article, or be discussed in the proper context in the body of the article. Badagnani 06:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. The Earth being 6,000 years of age is not held by any scientific authority, that's why it's "fringe".

The opinion that waterboarding is not torture is held by the US Department of Justice - a well known legal authority. Accordingly, it is not a "fringe" opinion, however much you want it to be.

Also, the definition argument has already been concluded above. Your definition doesn't say what you claim it says. It does not say "waterboarding is torture". And it does not say waterboarding inflicts "severe physical or mental pain". So there's nothing clear about it. Repeating yourself won't help.

Stick to NPOV. Stop trying to exclude the viewpoint of a valid authority from the lede. 220.255.114.59 07:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the the media reports of the DOJ opinion belongs in the lede and I proposed specific language that does so above under "Proposed Lede." None the less, we can point out that by all reports waterboading causes intense fear of imminent death and that that is one of the definitions of torture under the plain meaning of 18 USC 2340. We should not engage in speculation on how DOJ comes to its reported conclusion. --agr 10:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, some progress finally. Speculation as to how the DOJ comes to its conclusion is unnecessary, I agree. It's a valid authority, so NPOV means that the lede shouldn't exclude it. As it stands, the lede is a pretty good compromise now - and importantly, neutral.

As to "imminent death", the language is precise: the threat of imminent death. Not the "fear of". A subtle but important difference. Because there's a colourable argument to be made that there does not actually exist a threat of imminent death in waterboarding. (See the "Threat of imminent death" discussion with Ka-Ping Yee, above). As such, the proposed lede should include the usual caveats: "experts describe waterboarding as involving the threat of imminent death" etc. - and not simply the blunt assertion that it does. But this can be worked out later. I hope we're finally coming around to an NPOV consensus. 220.255.114.59 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Fear" and "threat" are intimately connected. Here is a def from lectlaw.com: "FORCE, THREAT OF USE - To do something which causes another person to act against his or her will. To use a 'threat of force' or to 'intimidate' or 'interfere with' means to say or do something which, under the same circumstances, would cause another person of ordinary sensibilities to be fearful of bodily harm if he or she did not comply." However, I have no problem with language like ""experts describe waterboarding as involving the threat of imminent death." --agr 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

220.255.114.59 writes: "The opinion that waterboarding is not torture is held by the US Department of Justice". I am aware of no such opinion. Please either provide a reference to a US DOJ opinion on the record that says "waterboarding is not torture" or retract your claim. Ka-Ping Yee 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You better retract your demand for retraction then. Numerous secondary sources document the claim.

1. Link. "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning."

2. Link. "One opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in May 2005 authorized a combination of painful physical and psychological interrogation tactics, including head slapping, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning, according to current and former officials familiar with the issue. . . . Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects, including a memo released publicly in December 2004 that declared torture 'abhorrent.'"

3. In the same article, Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First - and no friend of waterboarding - states that Justice Department lawyers say that "waterboarding is not torture": ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture".

4. Link. "The first opinion explicitly allowed a combination of techniques to be used on terrorism suspects, including slapping prisoners’ heads, simulating their drowning through waterboarding . . . . Both opinions were signed by Steven Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel."

5. Link. "The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday’s editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding".

Please don't say none of the above are primary sources (i.e., secret DOJ memos). Wikipedia does not require primary sources and encourages the use of valid secondary sources.

And this one just for people who are still claiming, rather incredibly, that "no one" claims waterboarding is not torture:

Link. "The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 . . . [1-5 omitted] 6. Water Boarding . . . The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners." 220.255.112.159 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Item 3 is immediately dismissed, as it fails to be a reliable source for the DOJ's official opinion in many ways: it is third-hand; it is a belief about what lawyers will say, not what they actually have said; and it is about unspecified lawyers that the administration "stocks" the DOJ with, not the DOJ as an institution.

An authorization of waterboarding is not equivalent to a declaration that waterboarding is not torture. Surely you can see that these two things are different. If you wish to claim that the US DOJ has authorized waterboarding then your items 1, 2, 4, and 5 certainly support that claim. However your claim is that the DOJ is an authoritative source for the position that waterboarding is not torture, for which none of these citations apply. Item 2 only says the memo "did not conflict with administration promises", which is a general claim about the memo as a whole, dependent on what the speaker believed the administration's promises were, and quite different from a direct statement that waterboarding is not torture. All your other quotations don't even mention torture.

If you have other sources, please provide them. Otherwise, you really don't have a case here. Ka-Ping Yee 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Item 3 is not so easily dismissed. It is a verifiable quote as reported by a third party source. You don't get to dismiss sources that meet WP:RS so easily just because you'd like to characterise the source as "unreliable". By that standard, all the sources that claim waterboarding as practised by the CIA is torture are unreliable, since it is a belief about what the CIA does, and not what the CIA actually did. Please be consistent.

And clearly you missed source two: "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects". In other words, not torture. DOJ _legal_ authorizations of waterboarding comport with the law and therefore cannot be torture since torture is illegal.

The case is overwhelming: the DOJ does not think waterboarding is torture. That's why there's a controversy. Please stop disregarding perfectly good sources with spurious objections. 220.255.112.159 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have misquoted and misread my comment. Please read comments carefully before replying to them. Ka-Ping Yee 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Have I? You changed your comment while I was replying, but I don't see anything substantively different. All 5 sources document the claim that the DOJ does not think waterboarding is torture. Torture is illegal. The DOJ asserts legality for waterboarding through its legal authorization of the practice. Sources 2 and 3 are especially specific that the DOJ does not consider waterboarding to be torture. Source 2 quotes DOJ officials themselves saying it ("does not conflict with promises not to torture"), and source 3 quotes an unsympathetic source describing DOJ lawyers as maintaining that "waterboarding is not torture".

Please be consistent. And please stop trying to exclude sources that merit inclusion based on NPOV. 220.255.112.159 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeating yourself doesn't make the sources any more relevant to your claim. You are still failing to address the specific problems I pointed out. I remind you that reading between the lines and drawing inferences on the DOJ's behalf does not allow you to make an authoritative statement about the DOJ's opinion. I am not going to repeat my criticisms again; they are already here for anyone to see. Ka-Ping Yee 03:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please. You do NOT deny that source 2 quotes DOJ officials stating that they do not consider waterboarding to be torture. "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects." (And here, "interrogation techniques" include waterboarding.)

Nor do you deny that The Washington Post is a reliable source. And that it quotes a source stating that Justice Department lawyers say "waterboarding is not torture", and I quote: ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture". WP:RS does not say anything about "third-hand" sources, your stated reason for excluding this source. So, notwithstanding your idiosyncratic notion of what meets the standard of a reliable source - a standard that is NOT found in WP:RS, we can safely state that DOJ lawyers do in fact claim that waterboarding is not torture.

Saying that WaPO is not a reliable source is a stretch, as even you must acknowledge. Please stop trying to exclude obviously reliable sources that merit inclusion based on NPOV. 220.255.112.159 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Some logic

If waterboarding fits the definition of torture, then it is torture. If the current article for torture doesn't change (as of 11/05/07, 9:30am pst), then the definition of torture indicates that waterboarding is torture. Any person can have a different idea of what is torture, be it Joe Common Man or President of the U.S., but without a valid logical reason, the current definition stands. If one believes that waterboarding is not torture then one needs to have valid reasons on why the definition of torture needs to be changed. The focus, if it hasn't been obvious by now, is wikipedias definition of torture. I can not detect any errors in logic in the postulate that waterboarding is torture. If one believes that waterboarding is not torture then one also disagrees with wikipedias definition of torture. As it stands, any debate about whether or not waterboarding is torture seems erroneous. Change the definition of torture and then one can debate whether or not waterboarding is torture. Sorry for the heavy handedness. --Lincoln F. Stern 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that waterboarding does not fit the definition of torture, wikipedia or otherwise? Hard to see things from another perspective, I know. But do try. There are smart people in the US DOJ who have been parsing these things for longer than you or I. 220.255.112.159 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That view, though notable in light of current events, is illogical in light of the definition of torture, which has been presented here several times (should I present it again?). Please see today's interview with Henri Alleg, in which he says that many people "accidentally" died during the Algerian War after being subjected to waterboarding. Badagnani 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your definitional argument has already been refuted above (shall I refute it again?). You failed to provide any supporting quotes from the definition stating that "waterboarding is torture" or that waterboarding inflicts "severe physical or mental pain". Despite being asked several times. Editors can scroll up and see that you declined to respond. Repeating yourself won't help. 220.255.112.159 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

18 USC 2340 defines severe mental pain as including "the threat of immanent death." Every source agrees that waterboarding produces an intense fear of death. Your OR attempts to find some ambiguity in "the threat of immanent death" not withstanding, the standard legal definition equates intentionally produced fear with threat. If you have a source that supports your tortured definition of "threat," produce it, otherwise your views have no relevance to this article. This is not a debating society. Wikipedia can rely on the plain meaning of the law, as supported by numerous experts who explain their reasoning. --agr 12:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's OR, but so is your OR to equate "fear" with "threat" when it isn't the plain meaning. In any event, the argument is moot. The DOJ does not consider waterboarding as torture, so stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again I must state that given the current definitions of torture and waterboarding, waterboarding is torture. waterboarding meets the definition of torture. It is a clear logical conclusion. Read the description for torture, then read the description of waterboarding. Logic, by its definition, is unbiased. The only way waterboarding can not be torture is if the current definitions of either one, or both, change. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Your "logical conclusion" is OR. And a significant legal opinion disagrees. Please do not come down categorically on one side of the "is/isn't" controversy. Wikipedia describes signficant views on either side of the controversy as per NPOV. Even if we grant your "logical conclusion", NPOV mandates that we not exclude the DOJ's view (obviously a significant legal opinion by any yardstick). 220.255.112.159 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The view you want to privilege (the term "significant legal opinion" which you've now mentioned nearly 5 times) is in fact a fringe opinion by a single administration in just one among nearly 200 nation-states, likely constituted to make an "end run" around hundreds of years of agreed-upon definition and practice by nations, by means of redefining the terms themselves. Badagnani 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "privileging" that view. I'm not asserting that that view is correct. I'm saying that it's just another significant viewpoint. You on the other hand are privileging the "is" viewpoint and trying to suppress the DOJ's contrary viewpoint. I'm including both. So saying that I'm privileging anything is absurd when you are the one trying to privilege one viewpoint over another.

Second, saying that the US Department of Justice is "fringe" is laughable. It's a well known legal authority in the United States. Don't like it? Tough. Calling something "fringe" doesn't make it so. I suggest you re-read NPOV if you have problems with that policy. 220.255.112.159 20:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've stated several times that the DOJ view (whatever that is, since it appears to have changed over time) does need to be described in the article, in proper context, with as much detail as necessary. Then again, the current DOJ appears to have been highly politicized, and that of the next administration may have a different stated view on this subject. Badagnani 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. So WHY are you trying to suppress the DOJ viewpoint by making the lede categorical in its rejection of the DOJ view that is well-sourced in the NYT and WaPo? Your insinuations that the DOJ is "politicized" doesn't change the fact that it is a significant legal entity one bit. 220.255.112.159 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "fringe," as I used it, means "highly unusual" in light of the opinion's deviation from the agreed-upon definition of "torture." Badagnani 20:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The agreed-upon definition of torture doesn't agree that waterboarding is torture, so it does not "deviate" from anything. The DOJ view is discussed in several mainstream newspapers. That makes it non-fringe. Face it. You're trying hard to suppress a significant legal viewpoint because you have difficulty with NPOV. Try familiarizing yourself with WP:NPOV. 220.255.112.159 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User 220.255.112.159, the description of what constitutes torture is, in part, descriptive of the usage of waterboarding. There is no side to logic. Either a statement is true or it isn't. When an idea is accepted to mean something, and one group wishes to change that definition, it is then up to said group to provide proof to back up their claim. It is not up to the general public to have to prove or disprove any claim forwarded without any proof supporting the claim. The United States Department of Justice has probably made mistakes in the past. Either if they had not, it would be foolish for anyone to accept their claim at face value without proof. All I have seen from the DOJ is, basically, waterboarding is not torture. I have not seen an explanation of why it should not be considered torture. If the reason for something is "because they say so", well that is not a valid proof. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding and water cure

How exactly does waterboarding differ from water cure. Is waterboarding a subset of water cure? Remember 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the latter you put a funnel down the person's throat and pour more and more water down the person's throat. This was done in Medieval Europe, and they would measure how many flagons had been poured. Presumably some would go into the stomach and some into the lungs, but most into the stomach. The Water cure article describes this in some detail. They are just two versions of Water torture. Badagnani 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't some fraternity perform a kind of "water cure" as a form of hazing a few years back? I think I read about it in Playboy (one of the initiatees died, prompting the story about this and other forms of hazing). I don't think a funnel was used, but they did make the hazees drink as much water as they could for a number of hours while trying to keep them from peeing (which obviously failed), and continued pouring water into and around them. 204.52.215.107 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chi Tau at Chico State. [20] 204.52.215.107 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

technique to support interrogation process

wrt. 1st §: waterboarding can't be interrogation, only a technique to support (or defect, depending on pov) the interrogation process. i think calling it interrogation is factually incorrect.

-- .~. 84.133.80.66 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. But I don't see where the article, as it currently stands, makes this mistake. Ka-Ping Yee 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps user 84.133.80.66 meant the usage of the words "interrogation technique" as being doubtful. No obvious error comes to mind reviewing the material. Could someone else fine-tooth comb the article? --Lincoln F. Stern 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as reliable sources

Are blogs published by reliable news sources considered valid sources? One of the claims in the article (that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been waterboarded in the presence of a female CIA supervisor) is sourced to an ABCnews blog 'The Blotter'.

Also, reference 45 is sourced to a blog. Does anyone object to its removal? Thanks. 220.255.112.159 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/cia-bans-water-.html"? The page it goes to reads like an article and is presented as such, but the URL implies that it is a blog. I do not object to its removal but one should also try to seek out further source information for the claim presented on the page. I'd do it but I am feeling lazy at this point. --Lincoln F. Stern 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not inherently unreliable sources. What matters is editorial oversight. It's clear that, while ABC News calls that a "blog" (it's basically just an article that allows comments), it has editorial oversight and is a reliable source. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So the consensus is no removal on ABCnews 'The Blotter'? I agree that it's a borderline case (purportedly a blog but published by ABCnews) that's why I asked.

And about reference 45... wrong reference - I meant reference 47 "unbossed.com". That's obviously a blog that isn't by a reliable news service - comments on removing that? 220.255.112.159 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that's not a good reference, but I found one to replace it (with significantly stronger wordage) in about 10 seconds. [21] —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. If no one else comments I tentatively assume we'll replace "unbossed.com" with the MSNBC reference and retain ABCnews 'The Blotter'. 220.255.112.159 20:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine. Though if someone wishes to debate the ABCnews one then I am all for finding a replacement source. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words - "Controlled Drowning"

I received a rather nasty post (which I repoponded accordingly to) in my talk page from Remember complaining of POV and demanding I use the talk page, which I have been. Ironically, this user has NOT used talk at all. Anyway, I have rolled back the revoltingly POV weasel words creeping in. Considering we are talking about clearly defined torture, I find this attempt to water down such an horrific crime to make it more politically palatable to a handful of war criminals and a rogue regime as an utterly unconscionable act, and certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suspect that even if Red State described this as "Controlled Drowning" there would be an uproar. I propose to revert any such weasel word on site. I suspect that the body of people here in talk seems like they would agree. 89.100.48.103 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh the delicious irony of being accused to have never used the talk page by a anon user who thinks the term "controlled drowning" is POV, when in fact, I was the first person to bring up whether we should use the term "controlled drowning" on the talk page. (See [22]).Remember 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the people here support this version, which I have reverted to. Please re-read this entire page. We cannot definitively call it torture, as we have a relatively clean split in sources--a ton call it torture, a ton do not; many notable experts call it torture, many do not. Our opinions of its status as torture are irrelevant. WP:NPOV is the arbiter of what we call it. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as Lawrence Cohen has just pointed out, do not make wholesale changes to the article as you have. Many editors here have put a lot of work into achieving what we have here now and it's about as balanced as it's been. I don't want to protect the article again but will if needs be. If you're going to make major, controversial changes as you have here, please bring it to the talk page first - Alison ^❤ 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm staying off this for a few days now, however I strongly contend that consensus on this FULL talk page is waterboarding is torture - end of story. Thuis far I can see 2 objectors. BTW - have you seen tonight's CNN poll - Even 69% of Americans (as in the people who's gic is doing the torture on their behalf) consider it torture. 89.100.48.103 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. A significant legal opinion disagrees. Stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My intent was not to make wholesale changes - but to revert them until a concensus was achived. Looking at the history, it looks like for many months a very fragile concensus was achieved, as with anything this can evolve, and a few days ago Laurence made an edit which kicked of that edit war I regret getting sucked into. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should stay at the pre-Laurence's halloween edit, until a new consensus for change is established - thus far I simply don't see that. As such I contend that I am not making major changes - but preventing (and reverting major changes until a consensus is achieved. Obviously with 2RRs I am backing off for others now as we don;t want to go back down the war road. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Allison, Not that I have behaved well - I know I really was out off line in that war a few days ago - however, I really don't think it is appropriate for you to revert it as I have contended that that version is what was stable for a long time until someone else brought in the controlled drowning business without seeking consensus? Shouldn't the last consensus achieved version stand until a new consensus is arrived at. Instead you are bringing yourself into the edit issue by 'imposing the NEW POV version which does not have any consensus knowing full well that I can't revert it back. I am not going to - obviously, but many editors would feel at this stage they would have to bring in other older WB editors to revert it, so instead of having me objecting to consensus busting, multiple people would come back for a soccer match over the issue. 89.100.48.103 17:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I have no interest whatsoever in the content, or in who's POV is the right POV here. What matters to me is that this situation doesn't degenerate into another full-on war. Now, things have been progressing steadily since the 5th and a lot of work was put in here before that. I deliberately only added a limited full prot for that reason as I trust you guys to get on with the job and settle your differences. Now, as I said, progress has been made here - like it or not - and the onus is on you right now to get involved with the others and bring your views to the table, not revert to a revision that you like, thus showing contempt for all the work the others have put in over the last week or so - Alison ^❤ 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm backing out now for a few days, but we all know someone such as Reinhold/AGR will revert it soon as always happened. I really think you should hold the old consensus version until something new is negotiated here. Me in or out will not affect the level of outrage non-US editors will point at this new change wo/ consensus. As long as that new version is there it will be a magnet. I think it is better that it is magnet for a handful of Bush supporters and others who confuse the arguments Is it torture with Is it justified - than a magnet for virtually the entire planet (including 69% of American's per CNN).89.100.48.103 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to controlled drowning

Back to 89.100.48.103's original topic, what is the feeling of editors on using the words "controlled drowning"? Do people feel that this is inaccurate, imprecise, original research or too POV to one side or the other? I myself think it is fairly descriptive if the point of waterboarding is to introduce water into the lungs in a controlled fashion, but I am worried that we are pushing the use of a term that is not widely accepted or used. So from my view any official sources using the term controlled drowning would alleviate my worries. I am also surprised that 89.100.48.103 thinks that this term is POV towards the Bush administration given the fact that the term "controlled drowning" sounds like a scary form of torture to me. Remember 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine and well-sourced. Most editors don't seem to have a problem with it. I say keep it. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is well sourced- see comment below [23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Simulates"

Someone has added the qualification "simulated" again. This technique does not "simulate" anything; as we now know from the sources, the person is actually drowning (the process of simultaneous inhalation and ingestion of water is called "drowning" in English) and people have died as a result. Badagnani 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, and I'm not particularly fond of the term myself but it IS sourced, no? 220.255.112.159 19:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "simulated drowning" is a term that has been widely used in the media. I don't know where the term originally came from before it appeared in the media but from the sound of it (it seems euphemistic, like "collateral damage") it likely came from a government news release or document and was simply adopted without close examination. It would be good to do a Lexis-Nexis search and determine what, when, and by whom the first usage of the term "simulated drowning" was. Badagnani 19:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi, please

Alison, could you downgrade to Semi? The only real fighting is anons going at it with each other. • Lawrence Cohen 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't, sorry. Not for a content dispute especially one in which anon editors are in dialog on the talk page. They have the same standing as anyone else in a content dispute unless there's some very obvious socking going on - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you like, you can have the protect reviewed on WP:RPP. I'll stay clear and you can tell the others there that I'm not averse to a review and prot change if anyone sees fit - Alison ^❤ 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah, in hindsight it's probably better this way, since it forces proper discussion rather than us all mashing the RV buttons. • Lawrence Cohen 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected

... again. Sorry about that but things have spiralled out of control again. One anon editor has now been blocked for 3RR. This time prot is indefinite until we can work something out here - Alison ^❤ 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are we working out here? I want to know so that we can figure out when we have actually come to an accord on the issues. Is the debate whether we should discuss whether it is torture? Remember 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems largely down to the "torture" word now, and not much else - Alison ^❤ 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture issue

It seems like a major dispute in this article is whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture. To deal with this situation I have made several proposals to help come up with a consensus. Please add support or objection below or add another proposal that you think will work best. Remember 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied the comment so that one can easily see who supports what. Please put further comments under the proposal you support or oppose. Remember 23:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1. State at the first sentence of the article that waterboarding is a form of torture

220.255.112.159 - No. That's a categorical statement that comes down on one side of the controversy and violates NPOV.

Badagnani - Supports Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is).

Support 1. This is a global encyclopedia and the controversy only affects the USA. There is no need to give this so much attention. This controversy should be, at most, mentioned in a brief paragraph. Even if the USA were to decide that waterboarding is no longer considered torture, it should still be mentioned as: "Waterboarding is a torture technique that..... Recently it has been redefined in the USA as not being torture. etc..." Exceptions can be mentioned, but that doesn't change the global consensus on the issue. --Antonio.sierra 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I refer to the following article:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers Party in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.

Although many people assert this is untrue, even some notable characters, I have yet to see somebody argue to remove used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews from the lead on account of the perceived controversy. By the same token there is no controversy, outside the Bush administration and its adherents, whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. To state otherwise would misrepresent the facts. Also, the intended new AG has much difficulty in publicly stating it is not torture. I wonder why. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2. State at some point that waterboarding is torture, but not in the first sentence which will be used to describe the procedure

220.255.112.159 - No. See 1.

3.State somewhere in the intro that waterboarding has almost always been considered a form of torture when used against a person's will (i.e., not during training exercises) but say that recently individuals within the US administration, politicians, and political pundits have argued that it is not torture and link to later on in the page

220.255.112.159 - Support. That waterboarding has long been considered torture is well-sourced.

220.255.112.159 - With the usual caveats of course, i.e., "numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture" rather than "it's torture". As long as it's not a categorical statement that rejects and excludes the contrary view, I'm fine with it. 220.255.112.159 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 is without a doubt the best and most accurate choice. Though I wish that we could say "it's torture" and leave it at that (whoops, have I said too much? :p), it has received a tremendous amount of attention because of the recent revision of its status by the present administration. That intro is clear, neutral, can be well-sourced, and explains why it's presently a major topic of discussion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani - Supports Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is).

4.State in the intro that some people consider waterboarding torture and other do not

220.255.112.159 - Support. The US Justice Department is a significant legal authority that does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

Comment: other legal authorities determined the Nazis did nothing illegal. Not suggesting any link between Bush and Hitler, merely pointing out that invoking legal authority is no guarantee of sound legal advise. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

5.Never state in the article whether it is or is not torture, but just describe the actual procedure

220.255.112.159 No. There is a clear controversy on the issue and both viewpoints should be included.

Other proposals?

Comments on proposals above

1. No. That's a categorical statement that comes down on one side of the controversy and violates NPOV.

2. No. See 1.

3. Support. That waterboarding has long been considered torture is well-sourced.

4. Support. The US Justice Department is a significant legal authority that does not consider waterboarding to be torture.

5. No. There is a clear controversy on the issue and both viewpoints should be included. 220.255.112.159 22:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think 3 is without a doubt the best and most accurate choice. Though I wish that we could say "it's torture" and leave it at that (whoops, have I said too much? :p), it has received a tremendous amount of attention because of the recent revision of its status by the present administration. That intro is clear, neutral, can be well-sourced, and explains why it's presently a major topic of discussion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With the usual caveats of course, i.e., "numerous experts describe waterboarding as torture" rather than "it's torture". As long as it's not a categorical statement that rejects and excludes the contrary view, I'm fine with it. 220.255.112.159 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Option 1. It is torture by definition, and we must not privilege a fringe redefinition in the lead. However, nothing prevents us from mentioning that the current administration of a single country is trying to redefine the term, in context in the body of the article. Thus, Option 3 is fine if the lead does not privilege the fringe definition by creating an ambivalence whether this practice is torture (when, by definition and massive historical evidence and consensus, it is). Badagnani 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture does not mention waterboarding, so your claim is just false. Stop trying to suppress the viewpoint of a significant legal authority in the US Justice Department. Just because you think a well-known legal authority like the DOJ is fringe doesn't make it so.

NPOV means including both viewpoints on the issue. By attempting to exclude the views of a significant legal authority in the lede, you're privileging one side of the debate, and violating NPOV.

You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth" . . . . Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better."

NPOV is clear. Stop asserting your preferred viewpoint as being judged as "the truth". 220.255.112.159 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - U.S. Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) stated on November 6, 2007: "Are we going to have to outlaw the rack because there's a question of whether the rack is used improperly in this country?" The name and description of every possible torture that can be devised, which fits our international definition of torture, does not need to be enumerated in the statutes, if they do indeed fit the definition of Torture, as waterboarding certainly does. Badagnani 23:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: "if" they do. That's a debatable question with waterboarding, with differing significant viewpoints on either side. Senator Cardin doesn't get to violate NPOV rules either, he's just one side of that debate. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV yet? 220.255.112.159 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding clearly fits into the international definition of Torture, as presented earlier several times. Your wish to privilege, in the lead, the fringe claim that waterboarding is not a form of torture, would be similar to stating in the lead of the Miocene article that "the Miocene is a period that either existed from 23.03 to 5.33 million years before the present, or did not exist at all because many prominent individuals, including many scientists at Brigham Young University, believe in the Young Earth--that is, that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years in age." There's nothing preventing us from discussing that claim, in context, in the proper section of the article, but when something is clearly torture, according to the international definition (and which the U.S. has prosecuted its own citizens, military personnel, and military personnel of other nations such as Japan) for practicing this variety of water torture, your insistence that this fringe redefinition be privileged in the lead does not have any merit. Badagnani 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop muddying the waters with illogical ripostes trying to contravene WP:NPOV. The view that the Earth is 6,000 years of age is not held by any scientific authority, that's why it's "fringe".

The view that waterboarding is not considered torture is held by the US Department of Justice - a well known legal authority. Accordingly, it is not a "fringe" opinion, however much you want it to be.

And no, waterboarding doesn't "clearly fit" the definition of torture. The definition doesn't even mention waterboarding, so it's not clear that it fits (that's why there is a controversy between significant legal viewpoints). Have you familiarized yourself with WP:NPOV yet? 220.255.112.159 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Young Earth creationism, approximately 5% of U.S. scientists believe that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. That is certainly a notable number. Conversely, fewer than 0.5 percent of the world's nations categorize waterboarding as "not torture." Badagnani 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I said scientific authority. Chemists and biologists are not authorities in geology, so cannot be considered valid scientific authority on the age of the earth. Your survey includes scientists who aren't authoritative, and so is irrelevant.

And you do not know how many of the world's nations categorize waterboarding as "not torture", so don't pull a speculative, unsourced figure out of thin air.

So much for your specious, unsourced, comparisons. POV-pushing to exclude a significant legal authority won't work.

Stick to NPOV. Familiarize yourself with it. 220.255.112.159 00:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if everyone refrained from arguing with each answer to the original query. My first choice is option 1, then 2 (not much difference, really). From WP:NPOV: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, ..." The DOJ legal opinion has never been published; it's a secret. As an open encyclopedia we don't have to give any weight to secret opinions beyond mentioning their reported existence, especially where there are numerous published opinions to the contrary.

However, in the interest of avoiding endless edit wars, I can live with option 3, and have suggested language to that end in "Lede Proposal" above. I do have one issue with proposal 3 as described. We should not mention training exercises in the article lede. Any number of heinous acts are acceptable when done as part of a training exercise. It's a minor point at best, even for the body of the article. I find the last two options unacceptable. --agr 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why (4) unacceptable? Seems pretty well sourced that there are two sides to the debate. Why deny that there is a controversy? Thanks. 220.255.112.159 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the goal here is to try to come up with a compromise. I find 3 less than ideal, but acceptable. Option 4 give too much weight to a rumored secret opinion. The current U.S. administration has NOT taken a formal public position on Waterboarding being torture, so to call it a two sided debate goes too far. The real debate in the U.S. is whether waterboarding should be used on alleged terrorists, usually framed by positing that they possess information which could stop an imminent WMD attack, the so-called "ticking time bomb." That is a very different question. The only reason torture comes into the discussion is that torture happens to be illegal under US and international law. --agr 04:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think compromise is in order. We do not compromise to satisfy the objections by flat earth or intelligent design supporters. Again for centuries it has been defined as torture. The US itself has prosecuted it, on what grounds do we succumb to the fringe legalese by an administration that has strong incentives for preventing the world from calling it what it has always been called: torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this article back to saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture" on numerous occasions. I may hold the Wikipedia record for doing this. I consider attempts to portray waterboarding as something-less-that-torture on the same level as holocaust denial and justifications for ethnic cleansing and rape camps. That said, "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus." (WP:Consensus) I think proposal 3 is acceptable because it emphasizes the long and extensive support for the proposition that waterboarding is torture. Arguably that is even stronger than Wikipedia simply stating waterboarding is torture as fact. Acknowledging media reports that the US uses waterboarding and its Department of Justice has written secret opinions saying that it isn't torture, is more an inditement of the present US administration than anything else. The existence of these reports certainly belongs in this article. --agr 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

User Nescio, do you have any issues with stating in the lead that "there has been a longstanding widespread international consensus that the use of waterboarding against an individual's will is torture (and giving citations to that effect), but that recently individuals within the Bush Administration, along with U.S. politicians and political pundits have disputed this categorization (and then provide a link to later part in the article where we discuss the issue further). If you do, please state your objections below and any suggested revisions. Remember 15:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

If you believe that the waterboarding article is POV and deserves a tag, please put your explanation below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the article comes down squarely on one side of the "is/isn't" debate, thus violating NPOV. Rather than include both viewpoints, the lede categorically rejects one of them (a viewpoint held by a significant legal authority the DOJ). Until this is resolved, the POV tag should remain. 220.255.112.159 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please provide a reference for the claim that some people at the US DOJ believe waterboarding is not torture, and the names of those individuals? Apologies if this has already been provided.Ofus 23:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure.

1. Link. "the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency . . . including simulated drowning."

2. Link. "One opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in May 2005 authorized a combination of painful physical and psychological interrogation tactics, including head slapping, frigid temperatures and simulated drowning, according to current and former officials familiar with the issue. . . . Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects, including a memo released publicly in December 2004 that declared torture 'abhorrent.'"

3. In the same article, Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First - and no friend of waterboarding - states that Justice Department lawyers say that "waterboarding is not torture": ". . . the administration stocks the Justice Department with lawyers who will say that black is white and wrong is right and waterboarding is not torture".

4. Link. "The first opinion explicitly allowed a combination of techniques to be used on terrorism suspects, including slapping prisoners’ heads, simulating their drowning through waterboarding . . . . Both opinions were signed by Steven Bradbury, head of the Office of Legal Counsel."

5. Link. "The two Justice Department legal opinions were disclosed in Thursday’s editions of The New York Times, which reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use of head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding".

6. Link. "Georgetown Law School professor and blogger Marty Lederman has the complete language of the accord, and concludes: '. . . That's a small consolation, I suppose; but I'm confident the creative folks in my former shop at [the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel] -- you know, those who concluded that waterboarding is not torture -- will come up with something.'"

And (not the DOJ, but a useful reference nonetheless):

Link. "The CIA sources described a list of six "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" instituted in mid-March 2002 . . . [1-5 omitted] 6. Water Boarding . . . The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners." 220.255.112.159 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. After reading those articles, it looks to me that no one speaking officially for the Department of Justice has openly made or verified the claim that "waterboarding is not torture" (or some similar, equivalent claim). It does look like anonymous people have claimed that some unnamed DOJ officials have secretly stated that waterboarding is not torture.

Would you agree? If so, could you please state your reasoning for asserting that these secret, unverified reports reports of secret, unverified statements of unnamed DOJ employees constitute an official DOJ position that waterboarding is not torture? Ofus 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have a "speaking officially" requirement? (I don't think so.)

This verified, reliably sourced statement is pretty clear: "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects".

The standard of verifiability is also clear: publication by a reliable source. The NYT, WaPo and MSNBC are reliable sources, and thus verifiable. I hope we're not trying to exclude reliably sourced information on the basis of raising and demanding more exacting standards for already-well-sourced information. WP:RS is non-negotiable. 220.255.112.159 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is verifiable is that anonymous claims were reported to the media. That doesn't change the fact that these are anonymous claims, and that they haven't been verified by the DOJ as far as I've seen.

As far as "speaking officially": If reliable sources claim that anonymous people claim that organization X endorses proposition P, yet P has not been officially endorsed by X, the claim that X endorses P is questionable. The claim that anonymous people made the claim that X endorses P is what is verifiable and therefore not questionable.Ofus 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Verified: anonymous claims made by "Justice Department officials". The articles accordingly have verified that DOJ officials are making the claim. There's no need for the DOJ to verify it themselves. That's not a wikipedia standard for verifiability.

Your "speaking officially" rationale is not found in Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability either. So I wouldn't spend too much time making convoluted arguments for it. The DOJ claims are verifiable and well-sourced according to wikipedia guidelines and thus merit inclusion. 220.255.112.159 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If all that has been verified is that some unknown number of DOJ officials have asserted that waterboarding is not torture, then it has not been verified that this viewpoint extends beyond a very small minority of people. While it might possibly be appropriate to give the official DOJ viewpoint such weight, giving such a small minority's viewpoint such undue weight is not NPOV. Ofus 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterisation of what has been verified. "Justice officials said the legal opinion on interrogation techniques did not conflict with administration promises not to torture suspects". That's the _official_ DOJ legal opinion they are talking about, not just their personal opinion. (Please read my sources again.) So what we have here is DOJ officials describing official DOJ legal opinion - not their own personal opinions. Given that the DOJ is a significant legal authority, these exceedingly well-sourced articles merit inclusion. This is standard NPOV. Be fair. 220.255.112.159 01:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What is needed now is the explanation of why it is not torture from those that say it is not torture. After reading up on torture, waterboarding seems to fall under that category. When experts disagree, then we have to bring the discussion to the why of it instead of just the usage of authority. --Lincoln F. Stern 04:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have issues with how this article should deal with classifying waterboarding as torture please place your thoughts and support or opposition under the proposals listed in the "How to deal with whether or not to classify waterboarding as torture issue." We are trying to build a consensus there on what should be done and any thoughts are welcome. Remember 13:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controlled drowning" used by NPR

From NPR All Things Considered program, November 6, 2007:[24]

“ Waterboarding is a process of controlled drowning used in the Spanish Inquisition and by tyrannical governments ever since.

For more than a century, it has been considered a war crime by the United States and prosecuted as such. The top legal officers of all the military services have testified that waterboarding is illegal under U.S. and international law.

”

Badagnani 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying this is a reliable source of information? You didn't even quote a person, you quoted a station. That's like me saying, "Waterboarding is not torture" From CNN

If you are going to use a quote, please give us specifics. Besides, I would have to question your source, it does not seem reliable to me:

"Wash. Post Media Critic: NPR is Liberally Biased In CNN interview, paper's Howard Kurtz noted radio network's taxpayer-funded leftward slant."

[[25]]